I've seen a few short proofs that if that some transformation [itex]\Lambda[/itex] preserves the spacetime interval, then(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

[itex]\Lambda^\top g \Lambda = g[/itex]

where g is the spacetime metric.

They have all relied on an argument using some simple algebra to show that

[itex](\Lambda^\top g \Lambda) x \cdot x = g x \cdot x[/itex]

and since this is true for *any* x, it must be true that

[itex]\Lambda^\top g \Lambda = g[/itex]

This confuses me. I don't see how this "since it's true for any x" step is justified.

For example,

[itex]\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{array} \right) x \cdot x = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right) x \cdot x[/itex]

for any x, and by the same argument, since it is true for *any* x, it must be true that the arrays are equal and -1 = 0 = 1. Did I just break math?

Intuitively, I don't think I could do the same trick to produce a counterexample in 3+ dimensions, but this seems like kind of a subtle point to sweep under the rug in a proof.

Does anyone have a more detailed version of this argument that would (hopefully) make more sense to me?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Confused by proof of Lorentz properties from invariance of interval

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**