Minkowski spacetime interval's Lorentz invariance

cefarix
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
Maybe this is really easy, but...
Can someone show me how the sign reversal between the space and time components of Minkowski spacetime make its intervals Lorentz invariant (mathematical derivation) ? Thanks... :wink:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Assuming that you are familiar with the Lorentz transformation equations themselves (object moving along x):
x'=\gamma(x-vt)
t'=\gamma(t-vx/c^2)
y'=y
z'=z
Lorentz invariance requires a space-time interval between two events to have the same magnitude from any frame so:
ds'^2=ds^2.
If ds^2 would have been defined Euclidean as:
ds^2=c^2t^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2,
then this equation should have hold:
c^2t^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2=c^2t'^2+dx'^2+dy'^2+dz'^2
If you solve the primed coordinates in this equation using the Lorentz transformation equations you end up with something that is clearly nonsense (check for yourself).
If on the other hand we define ds^2 Minkowskian:
ds^2=c^2t^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2,
then solving the primed coordinates leads to a correct result.

Another way to arrive at the +--- is using a lightpulse that spreads with speed c from the origin in all directions. A sphere is formed by this lightspreading according to:
c^2t^2=x^2+y^2+z^2,
so
c^2t^2-x^2-y^2-z^2=0.
This is also true from a moving frame:
c^2t'^2-x'^2-y'^2-z'^2=0,
so
c^2t^2-x^2-y^2-z^2=c^2t'^2-x'^2-y'^2-z'^2.
The rest of the story is the same but this last method was actually used to derive the Lorentz transformation equations in the first place.
 
I would do it this way. Take two events (t1,x1,y1,z1) and (t2,x2,y2,z2)

Using the lorentz transformations you can show that:
\Delta t' = \gamma (\Delta t - v\Delta x/c^2)
\Delta x' = \gamma (\Delta x - v\Delta t)
\Delta y' = \Delta y
\Delta z' = \Delta z

To get the above just use the lorentz transformations to calculate t1',x1'...t2',x2'... and then x2-x1 = \Delta x and x2'-x1' = \Delta x' etc...

Now just calculate out:
c^2*(\Delta t')^2 -(\Delta x')^2-(\Delta y')^2-(\Delta z')^2 by substituting the above formulas. You'll see that it comes out to:

c^2*(\Delta t)^2 -(\Delta x)^2-(\Delta y)^2-(\Delta z)^2

Showing that the euclidean formula (with + instead of -) is not invariant is simple. Just take two events let's say (0,0,0,0) and (t1,0,0,0)

Now c^2*(\Delta t)^2 +(\Delta x)^2+(\Delta y)^2+(\Delta z)^2

comes out to c^2*t1^2

for S' it comes out to (c^2+v^2) (\gamma)^2*t1^2

The two are not equal for nonzero v and t1.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top