Lorentz transformations: 1+1 spacetime only

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the complexities of Lorentz transformations in higher-dimensional spacetime, specifically 2+1 and 3+1 dimensions. Participants express frustration over the lack of a clear physical interpretation of the Lorentz group beyond 1+1 dimensions, despite a solid understanding of group theory. The conversation highlights the inadequacies of the Lorentz group in explaining experimental data in 3+1 dimensions, with references to the proper orthochronous Poincare group as a framework for dynamical theories. A recommended resource for further understanding is "Relativity, Groups, Particles" by R. U. Sexl and H. K. Urbantke.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lorentz transformations in 1+1 spacetime
  • Familiarity with group theory and the Lorentz group
  • Knowledge of the Poincare group and its significance in physics
  • Basic concepts of Minkowski spacetime and its implications
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of the Poincare group in 3+1 dimensional spacetime
  • Explore the physical interpretations of the Lorentz group in higher dimensions
  • Investigate the relationship between group theory and quantum field theories
  • Read "Relativity, Groups, Particles" by R. U. Sexl and H. K. Urbantke for a comprehensive introduction
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, mathematicians specializing in group theory, and anyone interested in the foundational aspects of spacetime and relativity.

  • #91
robwilson said:
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

This makes no sense to me. What does the number of spacetime dimensions have to do with the number of observers?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vela, vanhees71, weirdoguy and 2 others
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
robwilson said:
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.

I would assume that the added assumption has to do with invariance under purely spatial rotations, which don't exist in 1+1 spacetime but do exist when there are two or more spatial dimensions. We know that spatial rotations form a group, so then we just have to figure out what larger group includes spatial rotations as a subgroup and also includes Lorentz boosts. The usual definition of "Lorentz transformations" includes spatial rotations (I have seen the group of such transformations referred to as "spacetime rotations") because that group (the proper orthochronous Lorentz group, as I referred to it in a previous post) is the smallest one that includes both spatial rotations and boosts (but, as already noted by @vanhees71, boosts only form a subgroup if we restrict to boosts in a single direction).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
  • #93
The OP considers that this thread has outlived its usefulness. I thank those people who provided useful responses. Those from physicists and engineers trying to teach a group theorist how to do group theory were not useful, and were frankly insulting. Those from people unwilling to distinguish between physical reality and our current best fit mathematical models of reality merely muddied the waters. I notice that many of you have visited my blog, in which I explain the problem as I see it, and the wider context, and perhaps some of you have looked at my three recent papers on the arXiv, where I explain the group theory in detail. I do not claim to have any answers, but I do claim to be asking the right questions.
 
  • Skeptical
  • Sad
Likes   Reactions: Greg Bernhardt, Vanadium 50, PeroK and 1 other person
  • #94
robwilson said:
my three recent papers on the arXiv, where I explain the group theory in detail. I do not claim to have any answers, but I do claim to be asking the right questions.

In any case, you are pursuing your research, and time will tell whether it is useful. Best of luck to you in your endeavors.

Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Greg Bernhardt and vanhees71

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
830
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K