I Follow-up on Index notation for inverse Lorentz transform

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the correction of an equation related to the inverse Lorentz transform using index notation. A participant identifies a missing term, suggesting that the expression should include a specific notation for clarity. The corrected equation emphasizes the relationship between the Lorentz transformation and the metric tensor. The conclusion confirms that the proposed adjustment makes sense within the context of the discussion. Overall, the focus is on ensuring mathematical accuracy in the representation of the inverse Lorentz transform.
cianfa72
Messages
2,849
Reaction score
302
TL;DR
About notation employed for inverse Lorentz transform
Hi, reading again this old thread about Index notation for inverse Lorentz transform, I believe there is a missing ##\hat{L}## in the following, namely
$$(\hat{\eta} \hat{L} \hat{\eta})^{\text{T}} \hat{L}=\hat{\eta} \hat{L}^{\text{T}} \hat{\eta} = \mathbb{1} \; \Rightarrow \; \hat{L}^{-1} = \hat{\eta} \hat{L}^{\text{T}} \hat{\eta}$$ should actually be $$(\hat{\eta} \hat{L} \hat{\eta})^{\text{T}} \hat{L}=(\hat{\eta} \hat{L}^{\text{T}} \hat{\eta}) \hat{L}= \mathbb{1} \; \Rightarrow \; \hat{L}^{-1} = \hat{\eta} \hat{L}^{\text{T}} \hat{\eta}.$$
Does it make sense ? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...