Lorentz, waves, Einstein and bodies: transformations +/- gamma

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation and implications of Lorentz transformations, particularly focusing on the use of the gamma factor in relation to waveforms and the preservation of physical properties. It explores theoretical aspects, mathematical reasoning, and historical context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents their own transformations without the gamma factor and claims they suffice for transforming waveforms, leading to a speed of light result.
  • Another participant notes that the determinant of the proposed transformation is not equal to 1, suggesting a potential issue with the transformation's validity.
  • A different participant argues that lacking the gamma factor results in a scale transformation that does not preserve the length of spacelike or timelike four-vectors, particularly affecting the rest mass of particles.
  • Further discussion includes the determinant of the Lorentz transformation matrix, with participants calculating and questioning its value, noting it does not lead to unity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the sufficiency of the transformations without the gamma factor, with some asserting that the gamma factor is necessary for preserving physical properties, while others challenge these assertions based on their own calculations.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations related to the assumptions made in the transformations, particularly concerning the preservation of physical quantities and the implications of the determinant not equaling unity.

ANvH
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
I am using a wikipedia page, Derivation of the Lorentz transformations and a lot of historical papers. To follow through I came up with my own transformations that do not contain the gamma factor:

##x^{'}=x-\beta ct##​
##t^{'}=t-\beta \frac{x}{c}##​

When applying them to a waveform

##\omega t^{'}-kx^{'}=(1+\beta)\omega t-(1+\beta)kx##​

The speed of the wave is then
##u=\frac{\omega}{k}\frac{1+\beta}{1+\beta}=c##​

So for a waveform the above transformations suffice given the speed of the Doppler shifted wave is equal to the non Doppler shifted wave. However, using the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivations_of_the_Lorentz_transformations, the transformations need the gamma factor when I am following through with the above equations. For the waveform this will increase the Doppler shifts:

##\omega t^{'}-kx^{'}=\gamma (1+\beta)\omega t-\gamma(1+\beta)kx##​

The speed of the wave is then
##u=\frac{\omega}{k}\frac{\gamma(1+\beta)}{\gamma(1+\beta)}=c##​

I would conclude that the transformations without the gamma factor is sufficient to transform the waveform. The transformations with the gamma factor is apparently necessary when the waveform is not utilized to test the validity of the transformations, but comparing the above with the reasoning in Wikipedia seems to be confusing.

What am I thinking wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Note that the determinant of your transformation is not equal to 1.
 
Lacking the gamma, your transformation includes a scale transformation. It preserves null vectors but does not preserve the length of spacelike or timelike four-vectors. Especially it does not preserve the rest mass of a particle.
 
robphy said:
Note that the determinant of your transformation is not equal to 1.

Ok, the Lorentz transformation matrix

\begin{align}
A=\gamma\begin{pmatrix}1 & -\beta/c\\ -\beta c & 1\end{pmatrix}
\end{align}

gives a determinant

det##A=\gamma(1-\beta^{2})=\frac{(1-\beta)(1+\beta)}{\sqrt{(1-\beta)(1+\beta)}}=\sqrt{(1-\beta)(1+\beta)}##
that does not lead to unity either. Please enlighten.
 
det##A=\gamma^2(1-\beta^{2})##
 
Bill_K said:
det##A=\gamma^2(1-\beta^{2})##

gosh..., thanks.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 101 ·
4
Replies
101
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K