Canonical invariance vs. Lorentz invariance

In summary, the conversation discusses an assignment to prove the Lorentz invariance of specific intensity over frequency cubed. The main task is to prove the invariance of phase space d^3q \ d^3p using symplectic geometry. The book being followed is "Classical dynamics" by Jorge V. Jose and Eugene J. Salentan. The conversation then delves into the details of how Lorentz transformations act on phase space and how to show their invariance. Further calculations are discussed, but it is determined that there is a mistake in the final determinant calculation. The correct result should be \frac{p_0}{p'_0}.
  • #1
gasar8
63
0

Homework Statement


I have an assignment to prove that specific intensity over frequency cubed is Lorentz invariant. One of the main tasks there is to prove the invariance of phase space [itex]d^3q \ d^3p[/itex] and I am trying to prove it with symplectic geometry. I am following Jorge V. Jose and Eugene J. Salentan: Classical dynamics.

Homework Equations


[tex]\omega = dq^{\alpha} \wedge dp_{\alpha}\\
v = d^3q \ d^3p = \frac{1}{n!} \omega^{\wedge n} = \frac{1}{n!} \omega \wedge \omega \wedge \cdots \wedge \omega = dq^1 \wedge dp_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge dq^n \wedge dp_n,[/tex]
of course in my case [itex]n=3[/itex].

The Attempt at a Solution


The book says that this [itex]v[/itex] is invariant under canonical transformations, because [itex]\omega[/itex] is. I am now wondering if this is enough also for the Lorentz invariance?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It would be sufficient if Lorentz transforms manifest as canonical transformations in phase space. Do they? If not then you'll need to show it directly. To answer the question I think you cannot avoid explicitly dipping into the details of how the Lorentz group acts on phase space. So get too it.
 
  • #3
I tried now in another way. By the definition of forms and change of coordinates (the Jacobi matrix) which is for [itex]p[/itex] done also in Goodman. I write Lorentz matrix for boost in [itex]x[/itex] direction, which is[tex]\Lambda_{\mu}^{\nu} =

\begin{pmatrix}

\gamma & \gamma \beta & 0 & 0\\

\gamma \beta & \gamma & 0 & 0\\

0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\

0 & 0 & 0 & 1

\end{pmatrix}, [/tex]

so that the transformation is

[tex]

x'_0 = \gamma(x_0 + \beta x_1),\\

x'_1 = \gamma(x_1 + \beta x_0),\\

x'_2 = x_2,\\

x'_3 = x_3.

[/tex]

I know that [itex]v = p/E = p^1/p^0[/itex]. Following Goodman, I can get the [itex]d^3p/p^0[/itex] invariance, but when I try to do Jacobain determinant for [itex]d^3x[/itex] in the same way, I get

[tex]\begin{vmatrix}

\frac{\partial x'_1}{\partial x_1} & \frac{\partial x'_1}{\partial x_2} & \frac{\partial x'_1}{\partial x_3} \\

\frac{\partial x'_2}{\partial x_1} & \frac{\partial x'_2}{\partial x_2} & \frac{\partial x'_2}{\partial x_3} \\

\frac{\partial x'_3}{\partial x_1} & \frac{\partial x'_3}{\partial x_2} & \frac{\partial x'_3}{\partial x_3}

\end{vmatrix} = \begin{vmatrix} \gamma (1 + \beta \frac{\partial x_0}{\partial x_1}) & \gamma \beta \frac{\partial x_0}{\partial x_2} &\gamma \beta \frac{\partial x_0}{\partial x_3}\\
0&1&0\\
0 & & 1
\end{vmatrix} = \gamma(1+\beta \frac{\partial x_0}{\partial x_1}). [/tex]

I then assume that [itex]\frac{\partial x_0}{\partial x_1} = 1/v[/itex], since [itex]x_0 := t[/itex] and also [itex]v = \frac{p_1}{p_0}[/itex], so the final determinant is equal to [itex]\gamma(1+\beta \frac{p_0}{p_1})[/itex], which can be rewritten as
[tex]\frac{p'_1}{p_1},[/tex]
which is clearly not what I want. Should be [itex]\frac{p_0}{p'_0}[/itex]. Where am I mistaken?
 

1. What is canonical invariance?

Canonical invariance is a principle in physics that states that the physical laws and equations governing a system should remain unchanged under a change in coordinates or reference frame.

2. What is Lorentz invariance?

Lorentz invariance is a fundamental symmetry of special relativity, which states that the laws of physics are the same for all observers in inertial frames of reference, regardless of their relative motion.

3. What is the difference between canonical invariance and Lorentz invariance?

The main difference between canonical invariance and Lorentz invariance is the scope of their application. While Lorentz invariance is a fundamental principle of special relativity, canonical invariance is a more general principle that applies to all physical laws and equations.

4. How do these principles affect our understanding of the universe?

Both canonical invariance and Lorentz invariance are essential principles in modern physics and play a crucial role in our understanding of the universe. They allow us to make accurate predictions and calculations about the behavior of physical systems, from the smallest subatomic particles to the largest structures in the universe.

5. Can these principles ever be violated?

There is currently no evidence to suggest that either canonical invariance or Lorentz invariance can be violated. However, some theories, such as string theory, propose that these principles may break down at very high energies or on a very small scale. These theories are still being tested and researched.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
110
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
9
Views
778
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top