Metric Tensor Question: Special Relativity

In summary, the metric tensor remains the same (1,-1,-1,-1) regardless of the orientation or direction of velocity of the moving frame, as long as the chosen basis vectors are orthonormal. This can be seen through the use of a reciprocal frame and the dot product of vectors. The Lorentz transformation preserves the spacetime relationships between frames and does not change the metric tensor.
  • #1
Someone1987
70
0
I'm just wondering if the metric tensor (in its matrix form of 1 and -1's along the diagonal) is the same even when the direction of velocity of the "moving" frame isn't along the x-axis of the "stationary" frame but is in some arbitrary direction. This would obviously alter the Lorentz transformation matrix but it would seem to me that the metric tensor wouldn't change but I'm not sure. I'm just talking special relativity here so we don't need to generalize anything to general relativity. I'd appreciate any help. Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You're correct. In a cartesan inertial frame the metric tensor is always (1,-1,-1,-1) irrespective of orientation. You can actually check this by implementing at arbitrary Lorentz transformation on this tensor and checking that the components don't change.
 
  • #3
I've found it helpful to think about the metric tensor in terms of vector dot products, and a cooresponding basis.

You can cut relativity completely out of the question, and ask the same question for Euclidian space, where the metric tensor it the identity matrix when you pick an orthonormal basis.

That diagonality is due to orthogonality conditions of the basis chosen. For, example, in 3D we can express vectors in terms of an
orthonormal frame, but if we choose not to, say picking [itex]e_1 + e_2[/itex], [itex]e_1-e_2[/itex], and [itex]e_1 + e_3[/itex] as our basis vectors then how do we calculate the coordinates?

The trick is to calculate, or assume calculated, an alternate set of basis vectors, called the reciprocal frame. Provided the initial set of vectors spans the space, one can always calculate (and that part is a linear algebra exercise) this second pair such that they meet the following relationships:

[tex]
e^i \cdot e_j = {\delta^i}_j
[/tex]

So, if a vector is specified in terms of the [itex]e_i[/itex]
[tex]
x = \sum e_j a_j
[/tex]

Dotting with [itex]e^i[/itex] one has:

[tex]
x \cdot e^i = \sum (e_j a_j) \cdot e^i = \sum {\delta^j}_i a_j = a_i
[/tex]

It is customary to write [itex]a_i = x^i[/itex], which allows for the entire vector to
be written in the mixed upper and lower index method where sums are assumed:

[tex]
x = \sum e_j x^j = e_j x^j
[/tex]

Now, if one calculates dot product here, say with [itex]x[/itex], and a second vector

[tex]
y = \sum e_j y^j
[/tex]

you have:

[tex]
x \cdot y = \sum (e_j \cdot e_k) x^j y^k
[/tex]

The coefficient of this [itex]x^j y^k[/itex] term is symmetric, and if you choose, you
can write [itex]g_{jk} = e_j \cdot e_k[/itex], and you have the dot product in
tensor form:

[tex]
x \cdot y = \sum g_{jk} x^j y^k = g_{jk} x^j y^k
[/tex]

Now, for relativity, you have four instead of three basis vectors, so if you choose your spatial basis vectors orthonormally, and a timelike basis vector normal to all of those (ie: no mixing of space and time vectors in anything but a Lorentz fashion), then you get a diagonal metric tensor. You can choose not to work in an "orthonormal" spacetime basis, and a non-diagonal metric tensor will show up in all your dot products. That decision is perfectly valid, just makes everything harder. When it comes down to why, it all boils down to your choice of basis.

Now, just like you can think of a rotation as a linear transformation that preserves angles in Euclidian space, the Lorentz transformation preserves the spacetime relationships appropriately. So, if one transforms from a "orthonormal" spacetime frame to an alternate "orthonormal" spacetime frame (and a Lorentz transformation is just that) you still have the same "angles" (ie: dot products) between an event coordinates, and the metric will still be diagonal as described. This could be viewed as just a rather long winded way of saying exactly what jdstokes said, but its the explanation coming from somebody who is also just learning this (so I'd need such a longer explanation if I was explaining to myself).
 

1. What is the metric tensor in special relativity?

The metric tensor is a mathematical object used in the theory of special relativity to describe the geometry of spacetime. It represents the relationship between space and time, and how they are affected by the presence of matter and energy.

2. How does the metric tensor relate to the speed of light?

The metric tensor is used to calculate the interval between two events in spacetime, which is a fundamental concept in special relativity. This interval is invariant, meaning it is the same for all observers regardless of their relative velocities. The speed of light, which is constant in all reference frames, is a key factor in this calculation.

3. Can the metric tensor be visualized or represented graphically?

While the metric tensor is a mathematical object, its components can be represented graphically using a spacetime diagram. This diagram shows the relationship between space and time, and how it is distorted by the presence of matter and energy.

4. How does the metric tensor differ from other tensors?

The metric tensor is unique in that it is used to define the geometry of spacetime in special relativity. It is also different from other tensors in that its components can change depending on the reference frame, while other tensors remain the same.

5. What are some practical applications of the metric tensor in special relativity?

The metric tensor is used in many calculations and equations in special relativity, including the Lorentz transformation, energy-momentum equations, and the equations of motion for particles. It is also essential in understanding and predicting phenomena such as time dilation and length contraction.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
963
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
900
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
40
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
632
Back
Top