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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between Lorentz transformations and time-like four-momenta within the proper orthochronous Lorentz group SO^{+}(1,3). Participants explore the mathematical properties and implications of these transformations, particularly in relation to the orbits of four-momenta and the invariance of certain sets under these transformations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks an elegant proof that the orbit of a time-like four-momentum under SO^{+}(1,3) corresponds to a specific set of four-vectors with invariant mass and positive time component.
  • Another participant suggests that the relationship described is essentially the definition of the group SO^{+}(1,3).
  • Some participants agree that the relationship may seem trivial to some authors due to its definition, while others argue that it is not simply a matter of definition but requires further proof.
  • A later reply clarifies that while the elements of SO^{+}(1,3) do not change the invariant mass or the sign of the time component, it does not imply that any two four-vectors with the same invariant mass can be related by a transformation from this group.
  • There is a contention regarding the necessity of showing that SO^{+}(1,3) acts transitively on the set of four-vectors with the same invariant mass and positive time component, which some participants find challenging without brute-force calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the relationship between Lorentz transformations and time-like four-momenta is trivial or requires deeper exploration. There is no consensus on the necessity of brute-force calculations versus a more elegant proof.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that proving the transitive action of SO^{+}(1,3) on the specified set of four-vectors is essential for establishing the claimed relationship, indicating that the discussion is limited by the need for rigorous mathematical justification.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 84 ·
3
Replies
84
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K