Lorentz transformation of derivative and vector field

In summary: The components transform.The only distinction is the interpretation of the transformation matrix. When you transform the coordinates you can either think of it as transforming the coordinates of the components while the basis of the components remains unchanged (active transformation) or you can think of it as transforming the basis of the components (passive transformation). The latter is just the inverse of the former.
  • #1
doggydan42
170
18
TL;DR Summary
Why is the inverse transformation used for derivative and the position, while for a vector field the normal transformation is used?
I'm currently watching lecture videos on QFT by David Tong. He is going over lorentz invariance and classical field theory. In his lecture notes he has,

$$(\partial_\mu\phi)(x) \rightarrow (\Lambda^{-1})^\nu_\mu(\partial_\nu \phi)(y)$$, where ##y = \Lambda^{-1}x##.

He mentions he uses active transformation. So I understand the inverse in the y. For the derivative I tried

$$\partial'_\mu \phi=(\partial_\nu \phi )\partial'_\mu (x^\nu)$$

So then I need to show that ##\partial'_\mu (x^\nu) = (\Lambda^{-1})^\nu_\mu##.
$$\partial'_\mu (x^\nu)=\partial'_\mu (\Lambda^\nu_\sigma x'^\sigma) = \Lambda^\nu_\sigma \delta^\sigma_\mu = \Lambda^\nu_\mu$$.
This is how I thought to proceed, but clearly there should be a ##\Lambda^{-1}##, but I thought it would be that ##x' = \Lambda^{-1} x##. Why is it that although it is an active transformation ##x' = \Lambda x## instead? Did I make a mistake somewhere else? And if it is that the transformation should not be the inverse, why is it that the x transforms to y, which has the inverse?

Also, for a vector field he makes the claim that $$A^\mu \rightarrow A'^\mu = \Lambda^\mu_\nu A_\nu(\Lambda^{-1}x)$$ Why is it not the inverse transformation on the A but an inverse on x?

Thank you in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
First of all it is utmost important to write all indices not only in strict vertical order (defining whether an index denotes a co- or a contravariant tensor component) but also in strict horizontal order.

The logic is as follows: The contravariant time-space four vector components transform under Lorentz transformations as
$$x^{\prime \mu} = {\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\nu} x^{\nu}.$$
The same holds for ##\mathrm{d} x^{\nu}## of course.

The Lorentz transformation obeys
$$\eta_{\mu \nu} {\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\rho} {\Lambda^{\nu}}_{\sigma}=\eta_{\rho \sigma}$$
with ##\eta_{\mu \nu}=\mathrm{diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)## (in the west-coast convention).

This can be used to derive an important property of the inverse of the Lorentz transformation. Multiplying the above equation with ##{(\Lambda^{-1})^{\sigma}}_{\alpha}## gives
$$\eta_{\mu \alpha} {\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\rho} = \eta_{\rho \sigma} {(\Lambda^{-1})^{\sigma}}_{\alpha},$$
and now this equation with ##\eta^{\rho \beta}##
$$\eta_{\mu \alpha} \eta^{\rho \beta} {\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\rho} ={(\Lambda^{-1})^{\beta}}_{\alpha}. \qquad (1)$$

Covariant vector components transform as
$$\mathrm{d} x_{\mu}' = \eta_{\mu \rho} \mathrm{d} x^{\prime \rho} = \eta_{\mu \rho} {\Lambda^{\rho}}_{\nu} \mathrm{d} x^{\nu} = \eta_{\mu \rho} \eta^{\nu \sigma} {\Lambda^{\rho}}_{\nu} \mathrm{d} x_{\sigma} \stackrel{(1)}{=} {(\Lambda^{-1})^{\rho}}_{\mu} \mathrm{d} x_{\rho}.$$
It's also easy to see that a partial derivative with respect to ##x^{\mu}## leads to a covariant index.

To see this take a vector field which by definition transforms as
$$A^{\prime \mu}(x')={\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\rho} A^{\rho}(x).$$
For the derivative follows
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\prime \nu}} A^{\prime \mu}(x') = {\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\rho} \frac{\partial x^{\sigma}}{\partial x^{\prime \nu}} \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\sigma}} A^{\rho}(x) ={\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\rho} {(\Lambda^{-1})^{\sigma}}_{\nu} \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\sigma}} A^{\rho}(x),$$
which indeed is precisely the transformation rule for covariant tensor components. Thus to get a nice mnemonic notation you define
$$\partial_{\mu} = \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}}$$
with a lower, i.e., covariant, index.
 
  • #3
vanhees71 said:
First of all it is utmost important to write all indices not only in strict vertical order (defining whether an index denotes a co- or a contravariant tensor component) but also in strict horizontal order.

Sorry for not writing them out in horizontal order, I wasn't aware I could do that with latex.

I looked at a another lecture notes, and it seems like the notation is ##(\partial_\nu \phi)(y) = \partial'_\nu \phi(y)##, where ##y = \Lambda^{-1}x## because it is an active transformation.

So I see now where the ##\Lambda^{-1}## comes from, because the derivatives themselves are not transformed, just rewritten using chain rule, which pulls out a ##\Lambda^{-1}##. Do the derivatives not transform because an active transform is being used? Why would the derivatives not transform if the coordinates do?

vanhees71 said:
For the derivative follows$$\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\prime \nu}} A^{\prime \mu}(x') = {\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\rho} \frac{\partial x^{\sigma}}{\partial x^{\prime \nu}} \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\sigma}} A^{\rho}(x) ={\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\rho} {(\Lambda^{-1})^{\sigma}}_{\nu} \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\sigma}} A^{\rho}(x)$$

, which indeed is precisely the transformation rule for covariant tensor components.
Does that transformation rule change if an active transformation is being used instead of a passive one?
 
Last edited:
  • #4
I never understood the distinction between active and passive transformations. Mathematically it boils down to interchanging the transformation in one interpretation by its inverse in the other ;-)).

The mathematics is clear and simple. The vector-field components transform as given in my previous posting
$$A^{\prime \mu}(x')={\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\rho} A^{\rho}(x)={\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\rho} A^{\rho}(\hat{\Lambda}^{-1}x').$$
Analogously this holds true for tensor fields of arbitrary rank (with a transformation matrix for each index of the field components).

The tensor fields themselves are invariant under Lorentz transformations.
 
  • #5
vanhees71 said:
The mathematics is clear and simple. The vector-field components transform as given in my previous posting
$$A^{\prime \mu}(x')={\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\rho} A^{\rho}(x)={\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\rho} A^{\rho}(\hat{\Lambda}^{-1}x').$$
Analogously this holds true for tensor fields of arbitrary rank (with a transformation matrix for each index of the field components).

The tensor fields themselves are invariant under Lorentz transformations.

I think I understand it a bit better now. Thank you!
 
  • #6
vanhees71 said:
I never understood the distinction between active and passive transformations. Mathematically it boils down to interchanging the transformation in one interpretation by its inverse in the other ;-)).

The mathematics is clear and simple. The vector-field components transform as given in my previous posting
$$A^{\prime \mu}(x')={\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\rho} A^{\rho}(x)={\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\rho} A^{\rho}(\hat{\Lambda}^{-1}x').$$
Analogously this holds true for tensor fields of arbitrary rank (with a transformation matrix for each index of the field components).

The tensor fields themselves are invariant under Lorentz transformations.
A passive transformation is a diffeomorphism in the coordinate space, and an active transformation is a diffeomorphism on the manifold.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and weirdoguy
  • #7
Which is by definition (at least locally) equivalent.
 
  • #8
vanhees71 said:
Which is by definition (at least locally) equivalent.

So locally, the transformation of a vector field would be the same passive/active?
 

1. What is the Lorentz transformation of a derivative?

The Lorentz transformation of a derivative is a mathematical formula used to describe how the derivative of a physical quantity changes in different reference frames. It takes into account the effects of time dilation and length contraction in special relativity.

2. How is the Lorentz transformation of a vector field calculated?

The Lorentz transformation of a vector field is calculated by applying the Lorentz transformation matrix to each component of the vector field. This matrix takes into account the relative velocity between the two reference frames and the angles of rotation between them.

3. What is the difference between a Lorentz transformation and a Galilean transformation?

A Lorentz transformation is a mathematical formula used to describe the effects of special relativity, which takes into account the constancy of the speed of light. A Galilean transformation, on the other hand, is used in classical mechanics and does not take into account the effects of relativity.

4. How does the Lorentz transformation affect the laws of physics?

The Lorentz transformation affects the laws of physics by showing how they change in different reference frames. It explains how the laws of physics remain the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion, as long as they are in an inertial reference frame.

5. Can the Lorentz transformation be applied to all physical quantities?

Yes, the Lorentz transformation can be applied to all physical quantities, as long as they are represented by four-vectors. This includes position, velocity, momentum, and energy. It is a fundamental principle in the theory of special relativity.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
846
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
4
Replies
125
Views
6K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
62
Views
3K
Back
Top