Lorentz according to Bamberg & Sternberg

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Cantab Morgan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lorentz
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the Lorentz scalar product's invariance under Lorentz transformations as presented in Bamberg and Sternberg's book on Special Relativity. Participants express confusion regarding the introduction of variables p and q, seeking clarification on their definitions and roles within the proof.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant finds the proof in the book impenetrable due to the abrupt introduction of variables p and q, which they believe are not traditional momentum and position variables.
  • Another participant suggests that p and q might relate to the Lagrangian formalism, interpreting q as position and p as momentum.
  • A third participant provides a definition for p and q as lightcone coordinates, specifically p = (x - t)/2 and q = (x + t)/2, referencing page 151 of the book.
  • A later reply expresses gratitude for the clarification regarding the definitions of p and q.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretation of p and q, as there are differing views on their definitions and relevance. Some participants agree on the lightcone interpretation, while others suggest alternative frameworks.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential limitations in the clarity of the text regarding the definitions of variables and their implications in the proof, which may depend on the reader's familiarity with different coordinate systems.

Cantab Morgan
Messages
261
Reaction score
2
A number of times in Physics Forums, I've read recommendations for the excellent book, A Course in Mathematics for Students of Physics by Bamberg and Sternberg. In their chapter 4.6 on Special Relativity (page 152 in my edition), they prove that the Lorentz scalar product is left invariant under Lorentz transformations. Unfortunately, I find this proof impenetrable because they abruptly introduce variables p and q, which they have never defined. It looks like some kind of editing or copy-and-paste mistake.

Does anybody have any insight into what they were driving at, and what those p and q variables are? It seems that they are not the traditional momentum and position variables in this case.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't have that book but it sounds to me like the Lagrangian formalism. p and q are "generalized coordinates" with q representing position and p momentum. You might do better in the generala physics forum than mathematics.
 
On page 151, [itex]p[/itex] and [itex]q[/itex] are defined as (something like) lightcone coordinates, [itex]p = \left( x - t \right) /2[/itex] and [itex]q = \left( x + t \right) /2[/itex].
 
George Jones said:
On page 151, [itex]p[/itex] and [itex]q[/itex] are defined as (something like) lightcone coordinates, [itex]p = \left( x - t \right) /2[/itex] and [itex]q = \left( x + t \right) /2[/itex].

Aha! Thank you so very much, George!
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 94 ·
4
Replies
94
Views
15K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
10K