Deriving the lorentz transforms

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thrice
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    deriving Lorentz
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving the Lorentz transformations, specifically focusing on the matrix representation of these transformations and the relationships between different components of 4-vectors in the context of special relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore how to derive the matrix form from individual equations, questioning the correctness of the matrix representation. There are discussions about the components of the transformation and their relationships to 4-vectors.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered insights into the matrix's correctness and its relationship to the inverse transformation. There is an ongoing exploration of the implications of using different forms of the 4-vector and the potential errors in the initial assumptions.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about specific components of the transformation and the implications of switching variables. There is mention of external references, such as a Wikipedia page, to clarify the transformations.

Thrice
Messages
258
Reaction score
0
It's a really easy question, I know, but I must be doing something stupid. Can someone please spell out how to get the right hand side matrix form out of the individual equations?

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/8497/lorentz25wv.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Thrice said:
It's a really easy question, I know, but I must be doing something stupid. Can someone please spell out how to get the right hand side matrix form out of the individual equations?

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/8497/lorentz25wv.jpg
If you multiply the matrix by the 4-vector (t', x', y', z') it should result in the 4-vector (t, x, y, z) as set out on the left side of the arrow. I think the matrix is wrong, though. The numerator of the second term in the top row should be v/c^2 and the numerator of the first term in the second row should be v.

AM
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Andrew Mason said:
If you multiply the matrix by the 4-vector (t', x', y', z') it should result in the 4-vector (t, x, y, z) as set out on the left side of the arrow. I think the matrix is wrong, though. The numerator of the second term in the top row should be v/c^2 and the numerator of the first term in the second row should be v.

AM
See I thought that as well, but they have the inverse of that matrix in the book too & it matches up with the one on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorent...rmation_for_frames_in_standard_configuration". Apparently it's gotten by switching V for (-V). Does it work out if you use the 4 vector (ct', x', y', z') & (ct, x, y, z)?

Edit: Right.. it does.. I knew I was doing something stupid sorry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wait don't go. I have more foolish questions once I figure out how to post in that .. latex is it?
 
[tex] \newcommand{\pd}[3]{ \frac{ \partial^{#3}{#1} }{ \partial {#2}^{#3} } }<br /> <br /> g_{\it ij} \pd{}{V^k}{} (V^i V^j )= 2 g_{\it kj} V^j[/tex]
 
Last edited:
K got it. Why does that work? Something to do with the symmetry of the metric...
 
Thrice said:
K got it. Why does that work? Something to do with the symmetry of the metric...

No need for any special symmetry. It follows from [itex]{\partial V^i \over \partial V^k} = \delta^i_k[/itex] and similarly if i is replaced by j. Then you just need to rename a dummy index in one of the terms and you get the answer provided.
 
Thanks both of you. I don't know where i'd go when my brain isn't working. :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K