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

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 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