I Angle-Preserving Linear Transformations in 2D Space for Relativity

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the properties of angle-preserving linear transformations in 2D space, particularly in the context of Lorentz transformations as illustrated in a minutephysics video. It examines how worldlines change between observers while preserving the angle between them, leading to three specific transformations based on the event mapping at (2,4) to (0,T). The transformations are identified as rotation for T>4, Galilean boost for T=4, and Lorentz boost for T<4, raising the question of whether these are the only possible transformations that satisfy angle preservation and linearity. The inquiry seeks a mathematical proof to confirm that only these three transformations exist in flat geometry. The discussion emphasizes the need for clarity on the limitations of transformations in describing physical phenomena.
Shirish
Messages
242
Reaction score
32
I'm watching this minutephysics video on Lorentz transformations (part starting from 2:13 and ending at 4:10). In my spacetime diagram, my worldline will be along the ##ct## axis and the worldline of an observer moving relative to me will be at some angle w.r.t. the ##y## axis.

When we switch to the other observer's spacetime diagram, the observer's worldline will be along the ##y## axis and my worldline would flip over to the other side, but the angle between the worldlines would be preserved. Then the video goes on to mention three possibilities:

hHR59.png


The event at ##(2,4)## ends up getting mapped to ##(0,T)##, where ##T<4##, ##T=4## or ##T>4##. And it seems like the video is suggesting only one possible transformation for each case, giving a total of only three possible transformations. For an angle preserving transformation ##A##, given any two unit vectors ##u_1,u_2##, $$[u_1]^TM[u_2]=[u_1]^TA^TMA[u_2]\implies M=A^TMA$$ where ##M## is the metric we're assuming for the space. Seems like (though I'm not a 100% sure) the ##T>4## possibility corresponds to rotation (Euclidean, sure about this one), ##T=4## to Galilean boost (Galilean) and ##T<4## to Lorentz boost (Minkowski metric).

But why is it being suggested that only these three transformations (satisfying the angle preservation and linearity properties) are possible? Is it possible to find any other transformations than rotation for the case of ##T>4##, or other than Lorentz for ##T<4##, etc.? If not, can anyone direct me to a proof or explanation of why only three transformations are possible?

(Specifically a mathematical argument/proof of why Euclidean, Galilean and Lorentz must be the only linear angle-preserving transformations in flat geometry would be nice)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
He discusses on x-t diagram so rotation which includes y,z coordinate is a digression from his scenario. It has nothing to do with your T discussion. Inversion and displacement, neither.
Galilean transformation was revealed not to be a right one to describe nature.
 
Small edit to my original post since I'm not finding the option to directly edit: in the first 2 paragraphs, I miswrote ##ct## axis as ##y## axis.
 
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...