Four-Vectors: Definition Issues & Exam Prep

Bigfoots mum
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Im having some four-vector definition issues. I have a relativity exam coming up and they quite often ask about 4-vectors.

1) Does this definition sound ok?
'A four-vector is 4 numbers, say X=(X0, X1, X2, X3), used to describe an event in minkowski space. The 'zeroth' is the time component, while the other 3 components are the spatial components of a 3-vector. A four-vector differs from a 3-dimensional vector in that it can undergo a lorentz transformation and remain a four-vector. '
2) How do i show that a vector is actually a four vector?
Do i just show that it remains a valid four vector under a lorentz transformation?

Any help is greatly appreciated
thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi, the best way to define 4 vectors are by their transformation properties, which is essentially what you have said. In equation form it is

\widehat{x}^{\mu}=\Lambda^{\mu}_{\nu}x^{\nu}

Here Lambda is the mu, nu component of the lorentz matrix, and the einstein summation convention is used.
 
Bigfoots mum said:
2) How do i show that a vector is actually a four vector?
Do i just show that it remains a valid four vector under a lorentz transformation?
Yep, that works. I think it's also possible to show that it's a four-vector by demonstrating that if you contract it with another four-vector, the result is Lorentz-invariant (i.e. is a scalar). Sometimes that might be easier.
 
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