How Do Lorentz Transformations Relate Time-like Four-Momenta in SO^{+}(1,3)?

parton
Messages
79
Reaction score
1
I want to determine the orbits of the proper orthochronous Lorentz group SO^{+}(1,3).

If I start with a time-like four-momentum p = (m, 0, 0, 0)

with positive time-component p^{0} = m > 0,

the orbit of SO^{+}(1,3) in p is given by:

\mathcal{O}(p) \equiv \lbrace \Lambda p \mid \Lambda \in SO^{+}(1,3) \rbrace

Now the point is: how do you show that

\mathcal{O}(p) = \lbrace q \mid q^{2} = m^{2}, q^{0} > 0 \rbrace ?

Essently, the question is: why does a Lorentz transformation \Lambda \in SO^{+}(1,3) exist
such that two four-vectors p and q with p^{2} = q^{2} = m^{2} and p^{0}, q^{0} > 0 are related via q = \Lambda p ?

In fact, it is possible to answer my question(s) by brute-force calculations. But I am searching for an "elegant way", e.g. with the help of group theory.

I already searched in the literature, but in most cases it seems to be "trivial" for the authors
and I see now explicit proof.

Does anyone know of anything like that?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Isn't that the very definition of the group SO+(1,3)?
 
I agree with the above. It's trivial according to those authors because it's the definition.
 
dauto said:
Isn't that the very definition of the group SO+(1,3)?

No, it is not the definition of \mathrm{SO}^{+}(1,3). It is:

\mathrm{SO}^{+}(1,3) = \lbrace \Lambda \in \mathrm{GL}(4, \mathbb{R}) \mid \Lambda^{t} \eta \Lambda = \eta, \mathrm{det} \, \Lambda = 1, \Lambda^{0} \, _{0} \geq 1 \rbrace
The elements of this group will not change p^{2} and the sign of p^{0} by definition.

So we can say that the set
\lbrace q \in \mathbb{M} \mid q^{2} = m^{2}, q^{0} > 0 \rbrace remains invariant under Lorentz transformations.

But this does not necessarily mean that for any two fourvectors p, q with p^{2} = q^{2} = m^{2} and p^{0}, q^{0} there exists a transformation \Lambda \in \mathrm{SO}^{+}(1,3) with q = \Lambda p. In other words this would mean that \mathrm{SO}^{+}(1,3) acts transitivly on \lbrace q \in \mathbb{M} \mid q^{2} = m^{2}, q^{0} > 0 \rbrace. And you need to show this in order to proof that
\mathcal{O}_{p} = \lbrace q \in \mathbb{M} \mid q^{2} = m^{2}, q^{0} > 0 \rbrace

Actually I also don't see how to do this without using brute force. I think it is not that trivial.
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
According to the General Theory of Relativity, time does not pass on a black hole, which means that processes they don't work either. As the object becomes heavier, the speed of matter falling on it for an observer on Earth will first increase, and then slow down, due to the effect of time dilation. And then it will stop altogether. As a result, we will not get a black hole, since the critical mass will not be reached. Although the object will continue to attract matter, it will not be a...
Back
Top