I Lorentz transformations: 1+1 spacetime only

robwilson
Messages
60
Reaction score
11
[Mentors' note: This thead was forked from another thread - hence the reference to "these replies" in the first post]

I am wondering why all these replies only discuss Lorentz transformations in 1+1 spacetime dimensions. That is the easy bit. The problems in understanding arise in 2+1 dimensions, and even more so in 3+1 dimensions. I understand Lorentz transformations in 1+1 dimensions, where we are talking about 2 independent observers. I struggle in 2+1 dimensions, where we have three independent observers. In 3+1 dimensions, with four independent observers, I cannot make any sense of the Lorentz group. And I am a group theorist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, of course, I understand all that. As I said, I am a group theorist, so there is nothing you can tell me about coordinate systems for 4-dimensional spacetime that I don't already know. But no physicist has ever been able, or willing, to give me a real physical interpretation of the Lorentz group that makes sense.
 
robwilson said:
But no physicist has ever been able, or willing, to give me a real physical interpretation of the Lorentz group that makes sense.
Perhaps you should set out or reference an interpretation that doesn't make sense to you and explain what you see as its deficiencies.
 
  • Like
Likes robphy
robwilson said:
Yes, of course, I understand all that. As I said, I am a group theorist, so there is nothing you can tell me about coordinate systems for 4-dimensional spacetime that I don't already know. But no physicist has ever been able, or willing, to give me a real physical interpretation of the Lorentz group that makes sense.
It's all the possibilities for inertial reference frames: boosts, rotations; and, if you add translations you get the Poincare Group.

If I'm moving inertially relative to you, then my coordinates will be a Lorentz transformation of your coordinates. This can be defined by two physical parameters:

My velocity relative to you; and then I have the choice of orientation of my coordinate system.
 
I will, but not here, because it will get me banned. No-one has answered my original question, in any case. The group-theoretical problem is that from the one-dimensional Lorentz transformations it is impossible to infer what the two-dimensional group is. Therefore there is a physical assumption going into the process somewhere. It is a physical assumption about the nature of spacetime, and I'd like to know explicitly what it is. I have my own ideas, but this forum is not the place for me to expound on them.
 
robwilson said:
Yes, of course, I understand all that. As I said, I am a group theorist, so there is nothing you can tell me about coordinate systems for 4-dimensional spacetime that I don't already know. But no physicist has ever been able, or willing, to give me a real physical interpretation of the Lorentz group that makes sense.
It's in fact the proper orthochronous Poincare group, which determines not only Minkowski space-time as a physical space-time model but also a general framework to build the dynamical theories that describe the physical world. Together with the concept of locality, i.e., the field description of physics, which is the most natural description within a relativistic theory (note how problematic the concept of point particles in relativistic physics indeed is, not having a fully consistent dynamical theory for interacting relativistic point particles after about 120 years since Einstein's discovery of special relativity), to formulate dynamical models compatible with the space-time description based on this symmetry group.

Of course, which (quantum) field theories successfully describe the real world cannot be deduced from group-theoretical or mathematical considerations alone but you always need observations and experiments to get the right idea which models make sense and have a chance to stand experimental tests.

For a good introduction, particularly for a mathematician who already knows group theory very well but also for physicists who want a gentle but non-trivializing introduction to Lie-group-theoretical methods, see

R. U. Sexl and H. K. Urbantke, Relativity, Groups, Particles, Springer, Wien (2001).
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
vanhees71 said:
It's in fact the proper orthochronous Poincare group, which determines not only Minkowski space-time as a physical space-time model but also a general framework to build the dynamical theories that describe the physical world. Together with the concept of locality, i.e., the field description of physics, which is the most natural description within a relativistic theory (note how problematic the concept of point particles in relativistic physics indeed is, not having a fully consistent dynamical theory for interacting relativistic point particles after about 120 years since Einstein's discovery of special relativity), to formulate dynamical models compatible with the space-time description based on this symmetry group.

Of course, which (quantum) field theories successfully describe the real world cannot be deduced from group-theoretical or mathematical considerations alone but you always need observations and experiments to get the right idea which models make sense and have a chance to stand experimental tests.

For a good introduction, particularly for a mathematician who already knows group theory very well but also for physicists who want a gentle but non-trivializing introduction to Lie-group-theoretical methods, see

R. U. Sexl and H. K. Urbantke, Relativity, Groups, Particles, Springer, Wien (2001).
Thank you for this reference and for your serious response. I think you understand, as I do, that the group, whatever it is, determines the model of spacetime, and what field theories are possible, and so on. And of course I agree that group theory cannot determine these things, which can only be determined by experiment. That is why I, as a group theorist, presented with data, look for the right group to describe the data. Since I know a lot of groups very well indeed, I have a large menu to choose from, and I can look at the problem in some depth. And over the years I have collected a lot of data from the literature. And the more I look at it, the more it doesn't seem to fit. For 45 years, since I first learned the theory of special relativity, I never once questioned the appropriateness of the Lorentz group. But it doesn't seem to fit the data. In 1+1 dimensions it works, as all the textbooks prove. In 2+1 dimensions it can be made to work, with a bit of persuasion. In 3+1 dimensions, I don't see it.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes PeroK
What do you mean by that "it doesn't seem to fit the data"? To the contrary the more we test special and general relativity with ever more precise measurements (and the measurment of time is among the most accurate measurements possible today having all the quantum-optics technology at hand) the more the relativistic space-time model is confirmed. There is not a single high-precision measurement contradicting the assumption of (local) Poincare symmetry.
 
Yes, that is correct. But all the tests are carried out in 2+1 spacetime.
 
  • #10
robwilson said:
Yes, that is correct. But all the tests are carried out in 2+1 spacetime.
I think it's safe to say that no experiment has ever been conducted in 2+1 spacetime!
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes Doc Al, vela and vanhees71
  • #11
PeroK said:
I think it's safe to say that no experiment has ever been conducted in 2+1 spacetime!
You make a joke, which is fair enough. If you address the substance of my remarks, it would be more useful.
 
  • #12
robwilson said:
I am wondering why all these replies only discuss Lorentz transformations in 1+1 spacetime dimensions. That is the easy bit.
It's simple pragmatism on the part of the physicists, who often are interested in the math only to the extent that it is needed to effectively model the universe around them. As you say, the 1+1 case is easy - and that plus an assumption of isotropy, a coordinate rotation, and a wave of the hands is enough to work with problems in the locally flat space of special relativity.
 
  • #13
robwilson said:
And I am a group theorist.

Do you mean that you are a professional mathematician who specializes in group theory?
Or something else?
 
  • #14
Nugatory said:
It's simple pragmatism on the part of the physicists, who often are interested in the math only to the extent that it is needed to effectively model the universe around them. As you say, the 1+1 case is easy - and that plus an assumption of isotropy, a coordinate rotation, and a wave of the hands is enough to work with problems in the locally flat space of special relativity.
If we take the transformation of the Dirac electron as an example, with different representations of the Lorentz Group for the four-momentum and the spinor components, then there is a lot more than hand-waving going on.

Outside of elementary texts on SR, the 3+1 spacetime model is the default, and in the case of the electron spin can hardly be avoided.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #15
PeroK said:
If we take the transformation of the Dirac electron as an example, with different representations of the Lorentz Group for the four-momentum and the spinor components, then there is a lot more than hand-waving going on.
I think the Dirac equation maybe takes us beyond the original question (although splitting the thread may have changed the question - the post you're quoting had originally been in the B-level thread and considering only classical particles). But yes, you make a good point if we're going to dig deeper.
 
  • #16
robwilson said:
But all the tests are carried out in 2+1 spacetime.
I must confess that I don't understand this statement. Everything we do - including all tests - is carried out in the 3+1 spacetime in which we live, so I expect you meant something else here?
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #17
Nugatory said:
I think the Dirac equation maybe takes us beyond the original question (although splitting the thread may have changed the question - the post you're quoting had originally been in the B-level thread and considering only classical particles). But yes, you make a good point if we're going to dig deeper.
I think the gist of this thread is that the Lorentz Group only works in 1D (in some sense) and that physicists generally have never taken the trouble to look at the 3D group properly.

Your comment was somewhat unfortunate in that respect, I'm sorry to say!
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #18
Vanadium 50 said:
Do you mean that you are a professional mathematician who specializes in group theory?
Or something else?
Yes, that is what I mean.
 
  • #19
Nugatory said:
I must confess that I don't understand this statement. Everything we do - including all tests - is carried out in the 3+1 spacetime in which we live, so I expect you meant something else here?
What I meant was that the third dimension of space is not of the essence in the experiments. It may be that there are some experiments on SR that do essentially use the three dimensions, but if so I am not aware of them. My impression is that most experiments use only one or two space dimensions in an essential way. Some that do use three dimensions, which includes the neutrino oscillation experiments, and the kaon oscillation experiments, are in my opinion not well explained by the standard model.
 
  • #20
robwilson said:
The group-theoretical problem is that from the one-dimensional Lorentz transformations it is impossible to infer what the two-dimensional group is. Therefore there is a physical assumption going into the process somewhere. It is a physical assumption about the nature of spacetime, and I'd like to know explicitly what it is. I have my own ideas, but this forum is not the place for me to expound on them.

At times, it seems that aspects that are seen in Special Relativity
are actually seen elsewhere.
(That is, it may not really be a "special relativity" problem that "special relativity" has to resolve.)

Sometimes, it may be helpful (as a "toy problem") to consider what happens in those other cases.
Specifically,
  • How does 2-dimensional Euclidean geometry generalize to 3-dimensional Euclidean geometry?
    ...possibly, first keeping the first direction invariant as one considers extensions to the "second dimension"
  • How does the 1+1 Galilean geometry of nonrelativistic physics along the x-direction
    generalize to 2+1 and 3+1 Galilean geometry to the xy-plane and to 3-d space?
These (Euclidean, Galilean, and Minkowskian) are examples of the Cayley-Klein affine geometries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayley–Klein_metric
which are related by an underlying projective geometry.

Possibly useful reference:
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783642172854
Perspectives on Projective Geometry
A Guided Tour Through Real and Complex Geometry
by
Jürgen Richter-Gebert
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #21
The most general Lorentz transformation can be represented as
$$\left(
\begin{array}{c|c}
\gamma & -\gamma \textbf{v}^T / c\\
\hline
-\gamma \textbf{v} / c & \textbf{I} + (\gamma - 1) \textbf{v} \textbf{v}^T / (\textbf{v}^T\textbf{v}) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c|c}
1 & \textbf{0}^T \\
\hline
\textbf{0} & \textbf{U} \\
\end{array}
\right)
$$ where
  • ##\textbf{v}## is the velocity of one observer relative to another, as a 3×1 column vector
  • ##\gamma## is the usual Lorentz factor ##1 / \sqrt{1 - \textbf{v}^T\textbf{v} / c^2} ##
  • ##\textbf{U}## is any orthogonal 3×3 matrix, representing a rotation of one observer's spatial axes relative to the other
(You can verify it by considering the special case ##\textbf{v} = (v, 0, 0)^T##.)

That transformation represents a transformation between a pair of observers' coordinates. The whole group represents all possible transformations between pairs of observers, an infinite number of observers in total. I don't understand why you talk about 3 observers in 2+1 spacetime or 4 observers in 3+1 spacetime.
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK and etotheipi
  • #22
DrGreg said:
The most general Lorentz transformation can be represented as
$$\left(
\begin{array}{c|c}
\gamma & -\gamma \textbf{v}^T / c\\
\hline
-\gamma \textbf{v} / c & \textbf{I} + (\gamma - 1) \textbf{v} \textbf{v}^T / (\textbf{v}^T\textbf{v}) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c|c}
1 & \textbf{0}^T \\
\hline
\textbf{0} & \textbf{U} \\
\end{array}
\right)
$$ where
  • ##\textbf{v}## is the velocity of one observer relative to another, as a 3×1 column vector
  • ##\gamma## is the usual Lorentz factor ##1 / \sqrt{1 - \textbf{v}^T\textbf{v} / c^2} ##
  • ##\textbf{U}## is any orthogonal 3×3 matrix, representing a rotation of one observer's spatial axes relative to the other
(You can verify it by considering the special case ##\textbf{v} = (v, 0, 0)^T##.)

That transformation represents a transformation between a pair of observers' coordinates. The whole group represents all possible transformations between pairs of observers, an infinite number of observers in total. I don't understand why you talk about 3 observers in 2+1 spacetime or 4 observers in 3+1 spacetime.
I'm sorry, I'm not expressing myself well. Observer 1 and observer 2 understand each other via Lorentz transformations. Observer 1 and observer 3 likewise. The problem is for observer 1 to understand how observer 2 and observer 3 see each other, without talking to both of them.
 
  • #23
PeroK said:
If we take the transformation of the Dirac electron as an example, with different representations of the Lorentz Group for the four-momentum and the spinor components, then there is a lot more than hand-waving going on.

Outside of elementary texts on SR, the 3+1 spacetime model is the default, and in the case of the electron spin can hardly be avoided.
Of course, it is the electron spin that really points up the problem, although I didn't really want to get into all that. The action of the Lorentz group on the Dirac electron includes some variables that cannot be observed (e.g. spin direction), and does not include some variables that can be observed (e.g. generation). Plus the incompatibility of QM with GR is a serious mathematical problem, rather than a physical problem. But to sort out the mathematics, it is necessary to look at the experimental data with an uncluttered mind.
 
  • Like
Likes Killtech
  • #24
robphy said:
At times, it seems that aspects that are seen in Special Relativity
are actually seen elsewhere.
(That is, it may not really be a "special relativity" problem that "special relativity" has to resolve.)

Sometimes, it may be helpful (as a "toy problem") to consider what happens in those other cases.
Specifically,
  • How does 2-dimensional Euclidean geometry generalize to 3-dimensional Euclidean geometry?
    ...possibly, first keeping the first direction invariant as one considers extensions to the "second dimension"
  • How does the 1+1 Galilean geometry of nonrelativistic physics along the x-direction
    generalize to 2+1 and 3+1 Galilean geometry to the xy-plane and to 3-d space?
These (Euclidean, Galilean, and Minkowskian) are examples of the Cayley-Klein affine geometries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayley–Klein_metric
which are related by an underlying projective geometry.

Possibly useful reference:
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783642172854
Perspectives on Projective Geometry
A Guided Tour Through Real and Complex Geometry
by
Jürgen Richter-Gebert
Yes, all this is true. The question is exactly as you say, how does the geometry generalise from 1 space dimension to 3 space dimensions. The examples you give are not the only possibilities.
 
  • #25
robwilson said:
I'm sorry, I'm not expressing myself well. Observer 1 and observer 2 understand each other via Lorentz transformations. Observer 1 and observer 3 likewise. The problem is for observer 1 to understand how observer 2 and observer 3 see each other, without talking to both of them.
If we denote the Lorentz transformation between observer ##n## and observer ##m## by ##\Lambda_{nm}## then the essential results are that
$$ \begin{align*}
\Lambda_{11} &= I \\
\Lambda_{12} \Lambda_{23} &= \Lambda_{13} \\
\Lambda_{12}^{-1} &= \Lambda_{21}
\end{align*} $$
So is your question really, what is the physical justification for this?
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #26
robwilson said:
Yes, all this is true. The question is exactly as you say, how does the geometry generalise from 1 space dimension to 3 space dimensions. The examples you give are not the only possibilities.
True. Issues like homogeneity and isotropy would restrict the possibilities.

But how you would answer
" How does 2-dimensional Euclidean geometry generalize to 3-dimensional Euclidean geometry? ".
 
  • #27
DrGreg said:
If we denote the Lorentz transformation between observer n and observer m by Λnm then the essential results are that
$$ \begin{align*}
\Lambda_{11} &= I \
\Lambda_{12} \Lambda_{23} &= \Lambda_{13} \
\Lambda_{12}^{-1} &= \Lambda_{21}
\end{align*} $$
So is your question really, what is the physical justification for this?
It took me a while to put in the line breaks into your formulae, but then I have no problem with the first and third, it is the second one which needs justification. This is exactly the issue that I cannot resolve.
 
  • #28
robwilson said:
It took me a while to put in the line breaks into your formulae, but then I have no problem with the first and third, it is the second one which needs justification. This is exactly the issue that I cannot resolve.
Apologies, there's a bug in the forum software that sometimes corrupts the LaTeX during composition and preview, I've now fixed my previous post.

Surely the second equation is an inevitable consequence of Einstein's first postulate? If you accept that, then are you looking for experimental justification of the first postulate?
 
  • #29
robphy said:
True. Issues like homogeneity and isotropy would restrict the possibilities.

But how you would answer
" How does 2-dimensional Euclidean geometry generalize to 3-dimensional Euclidean geometry? ".
This is a highly nontrivial question. If you did 2-dimensional Euclidean geometry at school, as I did, taught not quite from Euclid himself, but not far off, you will know that 3-dimensional Euclidean geometry was not taught. It is far too hard, and the generalisations are far from obvious.
 
  • #30
DrGreg said:
Apologies, there's a bug in the forum software that sometimes corrupts the LaTeX during composition and preview, I've now fixed my previous post.

Surely the second equation is an inevitable consequence of Einstein's first postulate? If you accept that, then are you looking for experimental justification of the first postulate?
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but Einstein's first postulate seems to assume that if frame 1 and frame 2 are inertial with respect to each other, and frame 1 and frame 3 are inertial with respect to each other, then frame 2 and frame 3 are inertial with respect to each other. That isn't a mathematical theorem, so it must be a physical assumption.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
  • #31
I think possibly the content of my remark is not so much that it is a physical assumption rather than a mathematical theorem, but that it is not actually a reasonable physical assumption, if you think about it. That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true, but it does cast some doubt, I think.
 
  • #32
DrGreg said:
If we denote the Lorentz transformation between observer ##n## and observer ##m## by ##\Lambda_{nm}## then the essential results are that
$$ \begin{align*}
\Lambda_{11} &= I \\
\Lambda_{12} \Lambda_{23} &= \Lambda_{13} \\
\Lambda_{12}^{-1} &= \Lambda_{21}
\end{align*} $$
So is your question really, what is the physical justification for this?
Oops, I realize there's a mistake here. I had forgotten to include the phenomenon of Thomas–Wigner rotation, so the second equation should really be $$
\Lambda_{12} \Lambda_{23} =\left(
\begin{array}{c|c}
1 & \textbf{0}^T \\
\hline
\textbf{0} & \textbf{U} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\Lambda_{13}
$$ for some 3×3 orthogonal matrix ##\textbf{U}## which complicates the argument.
 
  • #33
robwilson said:
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but Einstein's first postulate seems to assume that if frame 1 and frame 2 are inertial with respect to each other, and frame 1 and frame 3 are inertial with respect to each other, then frame 2 and frame 3 are inertial with respect to each other. That isn't a mathematical theorem, so it must be a physical assumption.
It's a simple theorem if we use the Lorentz group in the definition of "inertial with respect to each other". Physical assumptions only get you so far. At some point you have declare the mathematical assumptions that are the basis of the model. Then it's a question of whether what you can crank out of the theory matches experiment.

It's clear that the historical postulates of SR are airy fairy - but, then, once you have your theory you can dispense with the historical baggage (if you so wish) and just say: flat spacetime is a 3+1 manifold with the Minkowski metric and be done with it.

Just recently I came across a pseudo-science link that said something like "if the speed of light is found not to be invariant then SR falls". Which is nonsense. SR is not dependent upon precise physical assumptions.

In answer to your question, the mathematical framework chosen for SR has the property that inertial relationships are transitive (if I can put it like that). If that's not justfified, then we'll eventually experimentally know about it.
 
  • #34
PeroK said:
It's a simple theorem if we use the Lorentz group in the definition of "inertial with respect to each other". Physical assumptions only get you so far. At some point you have declare the mathematical assumptions that are the basis of the model. Then it's a question of whether what you can crank out of the theory matches experiment.

It's clear that the historical postulates of SR are airy fairy - but, then, once you have your theory you can dispense with the historical baggage (if you so wish) and just say: flat spacetime is a 3+1 manifold with the Minkowski metric and be done with it.

Just recently I came across a pseudo-science link that said something like "if the speed of light is found not to be invariant then SR falls". Which is nonsense. SR is not dependent upon precise physical assumptions.

In answer to your question, the mathematical framework chosen for SR has the property that inertial relationships are transitive (if I can put it like that). If that's not justfified, then we'll eventually experimentally know about it.
Yes, every word of this is correct. But you use the word "if" in the first sentence, and it is precisely this assumption that I am questioning. What "if not"?
 
  • #35
robwilson said:
Yes, every word of this is correct. But you use the word "if" in the first sentence, and it is precisely this assumption that I am questioning. What "if not"?
And, by the way, we do know experimentally that this assumption is not justified.
 
  • #36
robwilson said:
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but Einstein's first postulate seems to assume that if frame 1 and frame 2 are inertial with respect to each other, and frame 1 and frame 3 are inertial with respect to each other, then frame 2 and frame 3 are inertial with respect to each other. That isn't a mathematical theorem, so it must be a physical assumption.
The first postulate, better known as the Principle of Relativity, is the assertion that all inertial frames are equivalent. I don't understand why you're saying things like frames 1 and 2 are inertial with respect to each other. You can establish, for example, that frame 1 is inertial. There is no need to compare it to frame 2 to establish this. Moreover, if frame 2 is inertial then of course both frames are inertial. There is no need to add the qualifier "with respect to each other".

So there are two experimental issues here. First, do inertial frames exist, and second, are they all equivalent to each other. The validity of these statements is established through experiment.
 
  • #37
robwilson said:
Yes, every word of this is correct. But you use the word "if" in the first sentence, and it is precisely this assumption that I am questioning. What "if not"?
Then you formulate an alternative theory; establish where it makes different predictions and test experimentally.

E.g. if (flat) spacetime is not isotropic and homogeneous, then we'd need a way to identify in what way it is not. That said, the expanding universe is a case in point. Globally we have (approximately) spatial flatness but a time-dependent scale factor.
 
  • #38
Mister T said:
The first postulate, better known as the Principle of Relativity, is the assertion that all inertial frames are equivalent. I don't understand why you're saying things like frames 1 and 2 are inertial with respect to each other. You can establish, for example, that frame 1 is inertial. There is no need to compare it to frame 2 to establish this. Moreover, if frame 2 is inertial then of course both frames are inertial. There is no need to add the qualifier "with respect to each other".

So there are two experimental issues here. First, do inertial frames exist, and second, are they all equivalent to each other. The validity of these statements is established through experiment.
PeroK said:
Then you formulate an alternative theory; establish where it makes different predictions and test experimentally.

E.g. if (flat) spacetime is not isotropic and homogeneous, then we'd need a way to identify in what way it is not. That said, the expanding universe is a case in point. Globally we have (approximately) spatial flatness but a time-dependent scale factor.
Indeed. But don't ask me about my alternative theory here!
 
  • #39
Mister T said:
The first postulate, better known as the Principle of Relativity, is the assertion that all inertial frames are equivalent. I don't understand why you're saying things like frames 1 and 2 are inertial with respect to each other. You can establish, for example, that frame 1 is inertial. There is no need to compare it to frame 2 to establish this. Moreover, if frame 2 is inertial then of course both frames are inertial. There is no need to add the qualifier "with respect to each other".

So there are two experimental issues here. First, do inertial frames exist, and second, are they all equivalent to each other. The validity of these statements is established through experiment.
I am sceptical. I have never heard a definition of "inertial frame" that isn't circular. Without a definition, an experimental test is meaningless.
 
  • #40
robwilson said:
I have never heard a definition of "inertial frame" that isn't circular. Without a definition, an experimental test is meaningless.
The first thing is probably true. It's the same with Newton's Laws: ##\vec F = m\vec a## defines both force and mass, essentially. Physics is like that. It can't be bootstrapped from nothing.

The second point is that in physics you can (and must) tie experiment to theory without complete philosophical watertightness.
 
  • #41
PeroK said:
The first thing is probably true. It's the same with Newton's Laws: ##\vec F = m\vec a## defines both force and mass, essentially. Physics is like that. It can't be bootstrapped from nothing.

The second point is that in physics you can (and must) tie experiment to theory without complete philosophical watertightness.
True, of course. We've probably gone about as far down this discussion as it is reasonable to go. I wanted to see if I could get some good physical reason for assuming the Lorentz group is the correct symmetry group for spacetime, if indeed spacetime is a meaningful concept at all, and on my terms the answer is no, I couldn't. Other people may be convinced, and it may be correct, but for me, I feel it may be useful to try other groups instead, and treating spacetime as emergent rather than fundamental. If these ideas are wrong, experiment will prove it, and nothing is wasted except my time, which is an investment I'm prepared to make.
 
  • #42
robwilson said:
True, of course. We've probably gone about as far down this discussion as it is reasonable to go. I wanted to see if I could get some good physical reason for assuming the Lorentz group is the correct symmetry group for spacetime, if indeed spacetime is a meaningful concept at all, and on my terms the answer is no, I couldn't. Other people may be convinced, and it may be correct, but for me, I feel it may be useful to try other groups instead, and treating spacetime as emergent rather than fundamental. If these ideas are wrong, experiment will prove it, and nothing is wasted except my time, which is an investment I'm prepared to make.

In many approaches to quantum gravity,
there is the issue of what "spacetime" really is and what are its properties.
So, it is a non-trivial problem.

In my opinion, a first step toward the answer is clarifying the [possibly tentative] starting points,
then seeing what follows from them... and seeing what more is needed to advance.

With the many symmetries of Minkowski spacetime,
there are possibly many starting points
(from an old thread)
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...challenge-for-experts-only.83373/#post-694535
1615666700651.png

..but this already assumes a lot... like a continuum.

Maybe spacetime is fundamentally discrete at the microscopic scale...
and maybe the causal ordering is what is fundamental
and this is what implies the group structure
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1704140
Causality Implies the Lorentz Group
Journal of Mathematical Physics 5, 490 (1964); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1704140
E. C. Zeeman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Robb (with his "after" relation) was probably among the first to consider causal ordering as fundamental.

Alternatively, maybe causality isn't fundamental (but only seems so macroscopically).
Some other structure may be more fundamental.

[A related question I've had is the dimensionality of space[time].]
Maybe the metric isn't even pseudo-riemannian. ( See my comment here mentioning the Ehlers-Pirani-Schild (EPS) approach : https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/511370/148184 )
Yes, many questions.

But the point is... one has to declare one's starting points.
(e.g. homogeneity?, isotropy?, etc...)
finally, a link to another old post, offering possible starting points in the literature
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-foundations-of-relativity-ii.106296/post-878413
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes dextercioby and PeroK
  • #43
robphy said:
In many approaches to quantum gravity,
there is the issue of what "spacetime" really is and what are its properties.
So, it is a non-trivial problem.[A related question I've had is the dimensionality of space[time].]
Maybe the metric isn't even pseudo-riemannian. ( See my comment here mentioning the Ehlers-Pirani-Schild (EPS) approach : https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/511370/148184 )
Yes, many questions.

But the point is... one has to declare one's starting points.
(e.g. homogeneity?, isotropy?, etc...)
finally, a link to another old post, offering possible starting points in the literature
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-foundations-of-relativity-ii.106296/post-878413
Yes, many questions. I just want a group that describes the symmetries that experiment reveals. I'm not happy with the groups that are in the current theories, and I've tried many alternatives, which I am not happy with either. Questioning the Lorentz group and the structure of spacetime is more or less a last resort - beyond this there is nowhere else to go.
 
  • #44
robwilson said:
I wanted to see if I could get some good physical reason for assuming the Lorentz group is the correct symmetry group for spacetime, if indeed spacetime is a meaningful concept at all, and on my terms the answer is no, I couldn't.
I arrive late to this thread, and maybe I shouldn't get involved, but it's a Sunday afternoon here and I'm a bit bored. So,...

Starting from the relativity principle, we ask "what is the largest group of coordinate transformations that maps inertial (non-accelerating) worldlines among themselves". I.e., coordinate transformations ##(t,x^i) \to (t',x'^i)## such that $$\frac{d^2x^i}{dt^2} ~=~ 0 ~~~ \leftrightarrow~~~ \frac{d^2x'^i}{dt'^2} ~=~ 0 ~.$$ Hidden in this is already an assumption of spatial isotropy and a technical assumption about continuity and differentiability of the admissible coordinate systems (which I gloss over for now).

The largest such group is the 24-parameter fractional linear transformations ("FLT" hereafter). Although it's possible to work with this group, I'll sketch the part of the argument relevant to ordinary Lorentz transformations by restricting the FLT group down to the affine group. It's obvious that ordinary translations in space and in time form subgroups, so by using this freedom I'll restrict to the case where coordinate origin is preserved by the transformation. I.e., by an ordinary translation, the primed origin can be made to coincide with the unprimed origin. Then, it's also obvious that spatial rotations are a subgroup here which preserves coordinate origins.

Now we can investigate velocity-changing transformations. Pick an arbitrary direction in space (anchored at the origin), and rename the spatial coordinates so that one spatial coordinate lies along this arbitrary direction -- I'll call it ##x##. By a spatial rotation of the primed coordinates we can make its spatial axes coincide with the unprimed coordinates.
(This also assumes we've set up our spatial axes to be Euclidean-orthogonal.)

Now we ask for the most general coordinate transformation (using the few degrees of freedom remaining) that maps $$\frac{dx}{dt} ~=~ 0 ~~~ \to ~~~ \frac{dx'^i}{dt'} ~=~ v ~,$$where ##v \ne 0##. We further restrict such transformations by requiring that they form a 1-parameter Lie group (with parameter ##v##), where ##v=0## corresponds to the identity, and is well-defined on a open set in ##v##-space containing ##v=0##.

Introducing such a Lie group requirement here is physically motivated by using (again) the relativity principle, i.e., that no inertial reference frame is in any way physically distinguished.
There's also an implicit assumption that if observer A is moving with velocity ##v_1## relative to observer B, who is moving with velocity ##v_2## relative to observer C (all reference frames having been set up as described above, i.e., all origins and all spatial axes coincide),
then there should exist a well-defined velocity ##v_3## with which C is moving relative to A.

Cranking the mathematical handle on the above yields the Lorentz transformations along spatial direction ##x##. We can repeat the whole procedure along directions ##y## and ##z## separately, then determine the full Lie algebra among the generators of those transformations (and discover that we much include the spatial rotations for the algebra to close). Then we can add the translation generators and discover the Poincare algebra.

You asked for a "physical" reason for assuming the Lorentz group is the correct symmetry group for spacetime. The answer is that we do NOT "assume" it. Rather, it is derived via analysis of the most general symmetry group that maps non-accelerating worldlines amongst themselves.

All my explanation above was in terms of abstract coordinates. Although most people then "promote" these coordinates to a "physically real" spacetime entity, but there is (imho) no need to do so. The basic (intrinsic) physical properties (mass, spin, etc) of elementary particles can be found from the unitary irreducible representations of the Poincare group, and the possible interactions between particles (and exchange of these properties) is also strongly constrained by the Poincare group.

[...]if indeed spacetime is a meaningful concept at all,[...]
It is meaningful only in the sense of being isomorphic to a homogeneous space for the Poincare group. The symmetry group governing inertial reference frames is what really matters.

<Phew!> ... I sure do hope this has actually helped... :headbang:
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes dextercioby and PeroK
  • #45
robwilson said:
I have never heard a definition of "inertial frame" that isn't circular.
What is actually wrong with circular definitions? I see the problem with circular reasoning, but I never understood why circular definitions are bad.
 
  • #46
strangerep said:
Starting from the relativity principle, we ask "what is the largest group of coordinate transformations that maps inertial (non-accelerating) worldlines among themselves".

You seem to be making an additional implicit assumption, namely that worldlines with zero coordinate acceleration have zero proper acceleration. Or are you including this in what you are calling the hidden assumption of spatial isotropy? (A worldline with nonzero proper acceleration picks out a preferred direction in space, the direction of the proper acceleration.)
 
  • #47
strangerep said:
It's obvious that ordinary translations in space and in time form subgroups, so by using this freedom I'll restrict to the case where coordinate origin is preserved by the transformation. I.e., by an ordinary translation, the primed origin can be made to coincide with the unprimed origin. Then, it's also obvious that spatial rotations are a subgroup here which preserves coordinate origins.

(This also assumes we've set up our spatial axes to be Euclidean-orthogonal.)

There's also an implicit assumption that if observer A is moving with velocity ##v_1## relative to observer B, who is moving with velocity ##v_2## relative to observer C (all reference frames having been set up as described above, i.e., all origins and all spatial axes coincide),
then there should exist a well-defined velocity ##v_3## with which C is moving relative to A.

You asked for a "physical" reason for assuming the Lorentz group is the correct symmetry group for spacetime. The answer is that we do NOT "assume" it. Rather, it is derived via analysis of the most general symmetry group that maps non-accelerating worldlines amongst themselves.

The symmetry group governing inertial reference frames is what really matters.

<Phew!> ... I sure do hope this has actually helped... :headbang:
Thank you for this detailed and helpful explanation. I've selected a few places where you use words like "obvious" or "assumption" for analysis. I feel there are gaps in the argument in one or two of these places, such as the one pointed out by PeterDonis. In particular, the conclusion that the Lorentz group maps non-accelerating worldlines among themselves does not seem to be justified by the analysis: unless I am much mistaken, the Lorentz group includes rotating worldlines, which are accelerating.
 
  • #48
robwilson said:
... unless I am much mistaken, the Lorentz group includes rotating worldlines, which are accelerating.
I'd say you are very much mistaken. It's the difference between a fixed rotated set of axes and a rotating (changing with time) set of axes.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
  • #49
@robwilson , in order to get your point, could you tell me do you have same question on Galilean transformation or you have no problem on it ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
DrGreg said:
Oops, I realize there's a mistake here. I had forgotten to include the phenomenon of Thomas–Wigner rotation, so the second equation should really be $$
\Lambda_{12} \Lambda_{23} =\left(
\begin{array}{c|c}
1 & \textbf{0}^T \\
\hline
\textbf{0} & \textbf{U} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\Lambda_{13}
$$ for some 3×3 orthogonal matrix ##\textbf{U}## which complicates the argument.
Thanks for this elucidation, and especially for the very helpful reference to the wikipedia article on Thomas-Wigner rotation. I note in particular the prominent sentence near the beginning: "There are still ongoing discussions about the correct form of the equations for the Thomas rotation in different reference systems, with contradictory results."
This is really my point: that if you assume the Lorentz group is a symmetry group of the system, then you get a particular prediction for this rotation, which presumably can be tested. The article does not suggest that it ever has been tested, however. Other groups will give other predictions. Is it just too difficult to test these predictions? Or is it a theoretical problem, because rotating frames are non-inertial, so that one needs general relativity as well?
 
Back
Top