Deciding if a transformation is a Lorentz transformation

spaghetti3451
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
31

Homework Statement



Is the transformation ##Y:(t,x,y,z)\rightarrow (t,x,-y,z)## a Lorentz transformation? If so, why is it not considered with P and T as a discrete Lorentz transformation? If not, why not?

Homework Equations



The Attempt at a Solution



A Lorentz transformation ##\Lambda## satisfies the relation ##\Lambda^{T}g\Lambda = \Lambda##, where ##g## is the Minkowski metric.

In our case, the transformation ##Y = \text{diag}(1,1,-1,1)##.

Therefore, ##Y^{T}gY = \text{diag}(1,1,-1,1) \cdot{\text{diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)}\cdot{\text{diag}(1,1,-1,1)} = \text{diag}(1,-1,-1,-1) =## the parity operator.

Therefore, the relation ##Y^{T}gY = Y## is not satisfied.

Therefore, ##Y## is not a Lorentz transformation.

Is my answer correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
failexam said:
A Lorentz transformation ##\Lambda## satisfies the relation ##\Lambda^{T}g\Lambda = \Lambda##, [...]
Are you sure about that? Are you sure it's not ##\Lambda^{T}g\Lambda = g## ? :wink:

Alternatively, you could just check whether the Minkowski line element ##ds^2 = t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2## is preserved.
 
Oh, right! In that case, the transformation ##Y## satisfies ##Y^{T}gY=g##, so the transformation ##Y## is a Lorentz transformation.

Second way:

An inner product of Lorentz four-vectors is Lorentz invariant.

(A Lorentz four-vector ##V^{\mu}## is a four-vector which transforms under the Lorentz transformation ##{\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\nu}## with the transformation law ##V'^{\mu} = {\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\nu}V^{\nu}##.)

(A mathematical object (i.e. Lorentz scalar, Lorentz four-vector, Lorentz tensor and combinations thereof) is Lorentz invariant if it does not change under a Lorentz transformation. Not all mathematical objects are necessarily Lorentz invariant.)

The only four-vectors mentioned in the problem are the position four-vectors ##x^{\mu}## before and ##x'^{\mu}## after the transformation ##Y##.

We know that the position four-vector is a Lorentz four-vector, so the inner products ##x^{\mu}x_{\mu}## before and ##x'^{\mu}x'_{\mu}## after a Lorentz transformation must be equal to each other.

So, let's take the inner products ##x^{\mu}x_{\mu}## before and ##x'^{\mu}x'_{\mu}## after the transformation ##Y## and check if the product is invariant:

Before the transformation ##Y##, ##x^{\mu}x_{\mu}=g_{\mu\nu}x^{\mu}x^{\nu}=g_{00}x^{0}x^{0}+g_{11}x^{1}x^{1}+g_{22}x^{2}x^{2}+g_{33}x^{3}x^{3} = (x^{0})^{2}-(x^{1})^{2}-(x^{2})^{2}-(x^{3})^{2}=(t)^{2}-(x)^{2}-(y)^{2}-(z)^{2}##.

After the transformation ##Y##, ##x'^{\mu}x'_{\mu}=g_{\mu\nu}x'^{\mu}x'^{\nu}=g_{00}x'^{0}x'^{0}+g_{11}x'^{1}x'^{1}+g_{22}x'^{2}x'^{2}+g_{33}x'^{3}x'^{3} = (x'^{0})^{2}-(x'^{1})^{2}-(x'^{2})^{2}-(x'^{3})^{2}=(t)^{2}-(x)^{2}-(-y)^{2}-(z)^{2}=(t)^{2}-(x)^{2}-(y)^{2}-(z)^{2}##.

The inner products are the same under the transformation ##Y##, so the transformation ##Y## is a Lorentz transformation.Is my solution accurate?
 
Last edited:
failexam said:
Second way:

An inner product of Lorentz four-vectors is Lorentz invariant.
Yes, but you don't need to do all that work if you realize that ##Y^T = Y^{-1}## for a Lorentz transformation (since this is true for all "SO(...)" transformations). Just write out the inner product in matrix notation...
 
So, do you mean that,

##x'^{\mu}x'_{\mu} = x'^{T}x' = (Yx)^{T}(Yx) = x^{T}Y^{T}Yx = x^{T}x##,

so that the inner product is invariant?
 
That's the general idea, but your details are not quite right. For arbitrary 4-vectors ##x,y## we have
$$y'^T g' x' ~=~ y^T Y^T \; g' \; Y y ~,$$ so if ##Y^T g' Y = g##, then the rhs is ##y^T g x##, showing that the inner product between 2 arbitrary 4-vectors is preserved.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top