Lorentz Transformation: Matrix Relation, Metric Tensor

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the properties of Lorentz transformation matrices and their relation to the metric tensor in flat spacetime. It clarifies that both the metric tensor and its inverse have identical numerical components, which can lead to confusion regarding their representation. The correct formulation of Lorentz transformations involves distinguishing between unprimed and primed indices, ensuring clarity in the transformation between different inertial frames. The use of the standard symbol for the metric tensor, ##\eta##, is emphasized to avoid misinterpretation. Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of proper notation and understanding of indices in the context of Lorentz transformations.
TimeRip496
Messages
249
Reaction score
5
As known, any Lorentz transformation matrix
##\Lambda##
must obey the relation
##\Lambda^μ{}_v####\Lambda^ρ{}_σ##gμρ=gvσ
. The same holds also for the inverse metric tensor
g
which has the same components as the metric tensor itself (don't really understand why every tex formula starts from a new line), i.e.
##\Lambda^v{}_μ####\Lambda^ρ{}_σ##g=gμρ
. Putting this all as a matrix relation, these two formulas are
ΛTgΛ=g , ΛgΛT=g
, where g is the metric tensor (and also the inverse metric tensor, as they are both the same).

I don't understand why is the lambda transpose and why the two different metric tensor suddenly become the same g. Is there something that I am missing out? And I a bit unsure of the inverse metric tensor stated above.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
TimeRip496 said:
I don't understand why is the lambda transpose and why the two different metric tensor suddenly become the same g.

A Lorentz transformation transforms between different inertial coordinate systems in flat spacetime. The metric tensor of flat spacetime is the same as the inverse metric tensor--i.e., the numerical values of the components are the same.

As for the transpose of the Lambda matrices, I'm not sure you have that right, because your Lorentz transformation matrices should have one unprimed and one primed index (unprimed for one frame, primed for the other), and the two expressions for the metric should also differ similarly. Using the standard symbol ##\eta## for the metric of flat spacetime, the relationships you wrote down would be:

$$
\Lambda^{\mu}{}_{\nu '} \Lambda^{\rho}{}_{\sigma '} \eta_{\mu \rho} = \eta_{\nu ' \sigma '}
$$

$$
\Lambda^{\nu '}{}_{\mu} \Lambda^{\sigma '}{}_{\rho} \eta^{\mu \rho} = \eta^{\nu ' \sigma '}
$$

Notice the primed and unprimed indices and how they are exchanged between the first and second equations. Also note that, although the ##\eta## matrices are all the same, in the sense that each individual component is the same, the equations refer to different components because of the different indices, so they are not saying the same thing.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
763
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
803
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
667
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
8K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
7K