Orthochronous subspace of Lorentz group.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that the product of two proper orthochronous Lorentz matrices is also orthochronous. Participants define orthochronous matrices as those with the property that their (0,0) component, denoted as \(\Lambda^0_0\), is greater than or equal to 1. Key mathematical tools discussed include the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and matrix multiplication properties. The conclusion emphasizes that if both matrices A and B are orthochronous, their product C will satisfy \(C^{0}_{0} \geq 1\).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lorentz transformations and the Lorentz group.
  • Familiarity with matrix multiplication and properties of matrices.
  • Knowledge of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in the context of linear algebra.
  • Basic concepts of orthogonality in matrices.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the Lorentz group and its transformations.
  • Learn about the implications of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in matrix theory.
  • Explore the derivation of the (0,0) component in Lorentz transformations.
  • Investigate the relationship between matrix orthogonality and Lorentz transformations.
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in theoretical physics, particularly those studying special relativity and the mathematical foundations of Lorentz transformations.

LayMuon
Messages
149
Reaction score
1
In a Lorentz group we say there is a proper orthochronous subspace. How can I prove that the product of two orthchronous Lorentz matrices is orthochronous? Thanks. Would appreciate clear proofs.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sounds like homework...

As a start, what is your definition of orthochronous?
 
\Lambda^0_0 \geq 1
 
LayMuon said:
In a Lorentz group we say there is a proper orthochronous subspace. How can I prove that the product of two orthchronous Lorentz matrices is orthochronous? Thanks. Would appreciate clear proofs.

Consider two such matrices, A and B, call their product C. Now take the (0,0) entries of the following matrix equations
A B = C , \ \ \ A \ \eta \ A^{ T } = B^{ T } \eta \ B = \eta .
Now, if you use the Schwarz inequality
<br /> - \sqrt{ ( A^{ 0 }{}_{ i } )^{ 2 } ( B^{ i }{}_{ 0 } )^{ 2 } } \leq A^{ 0 }{}_{ i } \ B^{ i }{}_{ 0 } ,<br />
and
A^{ 0 }{}_{ 0 } \geq 1 , \ \ B^{ 0 }{}_{ 0 } \geq 1 ,
you should be able to show that C^{ 0 }{}_{ 0 } \geq 1
 
Thanks for reply. Why is there a minus sign in Schwartz inequality? Isn't it \sqrt{ ( A^{ 0 }{}_{ i } )^{ 2 } ( B^{ i }{}_{ 0 } )^{ 2 } } \geq |A^{ 0 }{}_{ i } \ B^{ i }{}_{ 0 }|?

<br /> <br /> C^0 {}_0 - A^0 {}_0 B^0 {}_0 = A^{ 0 }{}_{ i } \ B^{ i }{}_{ 0 }<br /> <br />

How to proceed?
 
I don't (yet) see what Sam is doing there. But what you wrote isn't the standard Cauchy-Schwarz inequality either. I think what you're looking for is
$$\left|\sum_i A^0{}_i B^i{}_0\right|\leq \sqrt{\sum_i(A^0{}_i)^2}\sqrt{\sum_j(B^j{}_0)^2}.$$ Do you know how to prove that if ##\Lambda## is orthochronous, its 00 component is either ##\geq 1## or ##\leq -1##? If you have proved that, it will be sufficient to prove that the 00 component of the product transformation is ##\geq 0##. I think that makes the problem much easier. One approach is to try to show that (in a notation with all indices of matrix components written downstairs) ##(\bar\Lambda\Lambda)_{00}=\bar\Lambda_{00} \Lambda_{00} X,## where X is a non-negative real number.
 
Last edited:
So how does it work out?
 
Have you tried this approach? (I have, so I know that it works). What do you get?
 
Moved to homework since it is a homework type question.

LayMuon said:
So how does it work out?

Please provide an attempt at the solution.
 
  • #10
|C^0 {}_0 - A^0 {}_0 B^0 {}_0 | \leq \sqrt{\sum_i(1-B^0{}_0{}^2)}\sqrt{\sum_j(A^0{}_i)^2}. I don't know how to express $$ A^0{}_i^2$$ in terms of A00
 
Last edited:
  • #11
I don't see what you're doing there.

I worked through the solution by my method again. I had to use Cauchy-Schwartz, the familiar version for vectors on ##\mathbb R^3##, but not until the very end.

You didn't answer if you have already proved that the 00 component of a Lorentz transformation can't be in the interval (-1,1). You should start with that, because it makes your task easier. You will find that result if you look at the 00 component of the matrix equation ##\Lambda^T\eta\Lambda=\eta##. (Use the definition of matrix multiplication). The next step is to use the definition of matrix multiplication on the 00 component of ##\bar\Lambda\Lambda##. Feel free to use the notation AB instead of ##\bar\Lambda\Lambda## if you prefer.
 
  • #12
Fredrik said:
You didn't answer if you have already proved that the 00 component of a Lorentz transformation can't be in the interval (-1,1).

Yes, that's clear.
 
  • #13
OK, I should also mention that I find it useful to know that if ##\Lambda## is the transformation from the coordinate system S to the coordinate system S', then (in my notation, where all matrix indices are downstairs), ##\Lambda_{i0}/\Lambda_{00}## is the velocity of S in S'. It's not absolutely necessary to know that, but it makes some steps easier to see.
 
  • #14
LayMuon said:
Thanks for reply. Why is there a minus sign in Schwartz inequality? Isn't it \sqrt{ ( A^{ 0 }{}_{ i } )^{ 2 } ( B^{ i }{}_{ 0 } )^{ 2 } } \geq |A^{ 0 }{}_{ i } \ B^{ i }{}_{ 0 }|?
Ok, doesn’t this imply that
- \sqrt{ ( A^{ 0 }{}_{ i } )^{ 2 } ( B^{ j }{}_{ 0 } )^{ 2 } } \leq A^{ 0 }{}_{ i } \ B^{ i }{}_{ 0 } .

<br /> <br /> C^0 {}_0 - A^0 {}_0 B^0 {}_0 = A^{ 0 }{}_{ i } \ B^{ i }{}_{ 0 }<br /> <br />

How to proceed?

Now, from the other two equations, you have (sums over indices are implies)
( A^{ 0 }{}_{ i } )^{ 2 } = ( A^{ 0 }{}_{ 0 } )^{ 2 } - 1 ,
( B^{ j }{}_{ 0 } )^{ 2 } = ( B^{ 0 }{}_{ 0 } )^{ 2 } - 1 .
Using these, the Schwarz inequality becomes equivalent to
0 \leq | A^{ 0 }{}_{ 0 } | \ | B^{ 0 }{}_{ 0 } | \left( 1 - \sqrt{ ( 1 - | A^{ 0 }{}_{ 0 } |^{ - 2 } ) ( 1 - | B^{ 0 }{}_{ 0 } |^{ - 2 } ) } \right) \leq C^{ 0 }{}_{ 0 } .
Now you can check that C^{ 0 }{}_{ 0 } \geq 1.
 
  • #15
How did you get this: ( A^{ 0 }{}_{ i } )^{ 2 } = ( A^{ 0 }{}_{ 0 } )^{ 2 } - 1? I understand it for B. how are A^0{}_j and A^j{}_0 related?
 
  • #16
Lower indices number the rows in the matrix. Choose any convention you like and stick with it.
 
  • #17
samalkhaiat said:
Lower indices number the rows in the matrix. Choose any convention you like and stick with it.

I still don't understand. They are different parts of lorentz matrix. One can only use the definition of lorentz group, I.e. orthogonality.
 
  • #18
LayMuon said:
I still don't understand. They are different parts of lorentz matrix. One can only use the definition of lorentz group, I.e. orthogonality.

I don't really do homework. Any way, orthogonality is what I used in writing the matrix equations
\eta = A \eta A^{ T }, \ \ \eta = B^{ T } \eta B
Now, forget about upper and lower indices, Can you find the first matrix element, i.e. the (0,0) entry in each of the above equations?
 
  • #19
LayMuon said:
Thanks for reply. Why is there a minus sign in Schwartz inequality? Isn't it \sqrt{ ( A^{ 0 }{}_{ i } )^{ 2 } ( B^{ i }{}_{ 0 } )^{ 2 } } \geq |A^{ 0 }{}_{ i } \ B^{ i }{}_{ 0 }|?
OK, I see now that I got confused by the notation. The inequality that samalkhaiat wrote down is an almost immediate consequence of Cauchy-Schwartz for vectors in ##\mathbb R^3##. If we use your inequality from the quote above, and then use that ##|x|\geq -x## for all real numbers x,...

Regarding notational conventions: Some people would write ##x_i x_i## rather than ##(x_i)^2## to ensure that the index to be summed over explicitly appears twice, but I suppose that can be weird too when we use a convention that typically has one of the indices upstairs and the other downstairs. I would denote the component on row ##\mu##, column ##\nu## of an arbitrary matrix X by ##X_{\mu\nu}##, ##X^\mu_\nu## or ##X^\mu{}_\nu##. Samalkhaiat apparently uses ##X^\nu{}_\mu##. That's fine too. As he said, "choose any convention you like and stick with it".
 

Similar threads

Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K