Is the 4D Volume-Time Element Invariant Under Lorentz Boost in the z Direction?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the invariance of the 4D volume-time element \( dt\ dx\ dy\ dz \) under a Lorentz boost in the z direction, as posed by the original poster. The context is rooted in special relativity and involves concepts of transformations and invariance in spacetime.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the transformation of the volume element under Lorentz boosts, questioning the validity of the original poster's calculations and assumptions. There are discussions about the use of the Jacobian and the proper treatment of differentials in the context of volume transformations.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants providing insights and corrections to each other's reasoning. Some suggest that the original poster's approach may have overlooked certain mathematical principles, while others express confusion about specific steps in the derivation. There is no clear consensus yet, but various interpretations and methods are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential issues with the original poster's use of derivatives and the absence of a metric tensor in their calculations. The problem is framed within the constraints of a homework assignment, which may limit the methods allowed for solving it.

Unown
Messages
7
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Prove that the element [tex]dt\ dx\ dy\ dz[/tex] is invariant under Lorentz boost with velocity [tex]\beta[/tex] along [tex]z[/tex] axis.

Homework Equations



Convention [tex]c=1[/tex]

Lorentz boost in z direction:
[tex]L(z)=\left[ \begin{array}{cccc} \gamma & 0 & 0 & -\gamma\beta \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ -\gamma\beta & 0 & 0 & \gamma \end{array} \right],\ \gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\beta^2}}[/tex]

Definition of invariance:
[tex]dt'dx'dy'dz'=dt\ dx\ dy\ dz[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



Looks simple.
[tex]\left[ \begin{array}{c} dt' \\ dx' \\ dy' \\ dz' \end{array} \right]=\left[ \begin{array}{cccc} \gamma & 0 & 0 & -\gamma\beta \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ -\gamma\beta & 0 & 0 & \gamma \end{array} \right]\left[ \begin{array}{c} dt \\ dx \\ dy \\ dz \end{array} \right][/tex]

[tex]dt'=\gamma dt-\gamma\beta dz,\ dx'=dx,\ dy'=dy,\ dz'=-\gamma\beta dt+\gamma dz[/tex]

[tex]dt'dx'dy'dz'=\gamma^2(dt-\beta dz)\ dx\ dy\ (dz-\beta dt)[/tex]

I got stuck, but then I noticed that [tex]\beta=dz/dt[/tex], so:

[tex]dt'dx'dy'dz'=\gamma^2 dt\left(1-\beta \frac{dz}{dt}\right)\ dx\ dy\ dz\left(1-\beta \frac{dt}{dz}\right)=\frac{1}{1-\beta^2} dt\left(1-\beta^2\right)dx\ dy\ dz\left(1-\frac{dz}{dt}\frac{dt}{dz}\right)=\left(1-1\right)\ dt\ dz\ dy\ dz=0[/tex]

It shouldn't be zero! Please help!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You want a determinant of the matrix there don't you? Isn't that the Jacobian?
 
Uh...what happened to your dx on the right hand side?
 
Yes, if we use Jacobian this becomes trivial.
But the question doesn't include Jacobian, we have to do this the normal way.

I think my problem can be somewhere when I am writing [tex]\frac{dz}{dt}[/tex] and [tex]\frac{dt}{dz}[/tex]. Maybe there should be metric tensor somewhere that gives additional minus sign?

Please help!
 
I think that you wrote one of the dx's as dz...

Your answer came out quadratic in dz.

But perhaps that doesn't fix it, let me see...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dsaun777
Yes, sorry about that. I corrected this issue. But the equation still gives 0.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dsaun777
I'm actually not seeing how you're going from your third to last expression to your second to last expression...but I expanded out the thing myself and got 0 also, lol...sorry I guess I don't know where the error is.
 
In the second to last expression, you just take dt' dx' dy' and dz' from the third and place 'em there. I also took out [tex]\gamma[/tex]s, to simplify things.

Well thanks for the try. Just be sure you didn't get suggested by my derivation and did the same mistake.

Any other ideas?
 
given a mapping f: (x,y) -> (s,t)

ds dt is given by J(f) dx dy where J(f) is the Jacobian of the map.

it is NOT given by
((ds/dx) dx + (ds/dy)dy)*( (dt/dx)dx + (dt/dy)dy)
which is what you're trying to calculate above.
 
  • #10
Okey. But why is that? Why is my calculation wrong?

How to show, that ds dt is given by J(f) dx dy?
 
  • #11
Your calculation is wrong because that's not how volumes work! Why is the formula i wrote down right? Any book talking about vector calculus should explain it. But I'll give it a go.

Here's a sketch:
we need to be clear about what you mean by ds dt! from a geometric point of view
what we're really doing (in 2d) is calculating the AREA dA of the image of the map.

if the point (x,y) goes to f(x,y) = (s(x,y), t(x,y) ) = (s,t)

the point (x+dx, y) goes to f(x+dx, y) = (s(x+dx, y), t(x+dx, y) ) which is about
(s, t) + (ds/dx, dt/dx) dx

similarly (x, y+dy) goes to (s,t) + (ds/dy, dt/dy)dy

now dA is the area spanned by the two vectors
v1 = f(x+dx, y) - f(x,y) = (ds/dx, dt/dx) dx
v2 = f(x, y+dy) - f(x,y) = (ds/dy, dt/dy) dy
the area is just the (magnitude of the) cross product.

dA = |v1 X v2| = | (ds/dx, dt/dx) X (ds/dy, dt/dy) | dx dy
dA = |ds/dx dt/dy - ds/dy dt/dx| dx dy

so we write down
dA = dx dy = J(f) ds dt where J(f) is |ds/dx dt/dy - ds/dy dt/dx| the Jacobian of the transform.

----------------------------------------
now. Why doesn't your way work.
Let's look at a simple example:
s = 1/sqrt(2) ( x + y)
t = 1/sqrt(2) (-x + y)
(s and t here are just rotated by 90 degrees)

ds = 1/sqrt(2)( dx + dy)
dt = 1/sqrt(2)( -dx + dy)
ds dt =?= 1/2(dx + dy)(-dx + dy) = 1/2(-dx^2 +dx dy - dy dx + dy^2)
= 1/2(dy^2 - dx^2)
well now this is just wrong. there's nothing to be done here the differentials can't meaningfully be treated as numbers to work out volume changes.

what should we have gotten
ds dt = | 1/sqrt(2) 1/sqrt(2) - (-1/sqrt(2))(1/sqrt(2))| dx dy = dx dy
 
  • #12
Thanks! I understand now.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
44
Views
6K