Simple problem driving me nuts :-)

  • Thread starter Fredrik
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Nuts
In summary, the condition \Lambda^T\eta\Lambda=\eta is not physically obvious, and the general form of \Lambda is Q \Lambda or \Lambda Q, where Q is a space-only rotation, i.e. in the form Q = \begin{pmatrix}1 & \textbf{0}^T \\ \textbf{0} & \textbf{Q}_0 \end{pmatrix}where Q0 is a 3 x 3 orthogonal matrix (\textbf{Q}_0^T \textbf{Q}_0 = \textbf{I}).
  • #1
Fredrik
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,877
422
I'm embarrassed to ask, but I think this will save me some time...

I'm trying to use the condition [itex]\Lambda^T\eta\Lambda=\eta[/itex] to show that [itex]\Lambda_{0i}=-\Lambda_{i0}[/itex], where i=1,2,3. This is the algebraic version of the physically obvious condition that if the velocity associated with a homogeneous Lorentz transformation is [itex]\vec{v}[/itex], then the velocity associated with its inverse is [itex]-\vec{v}[/itex]. This should be easy, but I don't see it.

([itex]X_{0i}[/itex] is row 0, column i, of the matrix X. I'm putting all the indices downstairs because I feel that's less confusing when calculations include transposes of matrices).
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I gave it another shot, and it turned out that the "obvious" condition isn't true. If my math is correct this time, the general form of [itex]\Lambda[/itex] is

[tex]\Lambda=\gamma\begin{pmatrix}1 & v^T R \\ -v & -R\end{pmatrix}[/tex]

where v is a 3x1 matrix that we can think of as "their" velocity in "our" frame, and R is a 3x3 matrix that isn't orthogonal in general, but is orthogonal in the limit v [itex]\rightarrow [/itex] 0 (so its components must depend on v). The velocity that corresponds to [itex]\Lambda^{-1}[/itex] the same way that v corresponds to [itex]\Lambda[/itex] is -RTv. So it's only =-v when R=0, i.e. when we have a pure boost.
 
  • #3
Fredrik said:
I gave it another shot, and it turned out that the "obvious" condition isn't true. If my math is correct this time, the general form of [itex]\Lambda[/itex] is

[tex]\Lambda=\gamma\begin{pmatrix}1 & v^T R \\ -v & -R\end{pmatrix}[/tex]

where v is a 3x1 matrix that we can think of as "their" velocity in "our" frame, and R is a 3x3 matrix that isn't orthogonal in general, but is orthogonal in the limit v [itex]\rightarrow [/itex] 0 (so its components must depend on v). The velocity that corresponds to [itex]\Lambda^{-1}[/itex] the same way that v corresponds to [itex]\Lambda[/itex] is -RTv. So it's only =-v when R=0, i.e. when we have a pure boost.
If we ignore the possibility of a spatial rotation and consider boosts only, a boost in an arbitrary direction ought to be

[tex]{\Lambda^a}_b=\begin{pmatrix}\gamma & -\gamma \textbf{v}^T \\ -\gamma \textbf{v} & \textbf{I} + (\gamma - 1)\frac{\textbf{v} \textbf{v}^T}{\textbf{v}^T \textbf{v}}\end{pmatrix}[/tex]

(assuming c = 1 or equivalently x0 = ct).

However, when you say you are "putting all the indices downstairs" I'm not sure whether you mean you are ignoring the index position or whether you really are calculating [tex]\Lambda_{ab}[/tex] which differs from both [tex]\Lambda^{ab}[/tex] and [tex]{\Lambda^a}_b[/tex].
 
  • #4
DrGreg said:
If we ignore the possibility of a spatial rotation and consider boosts only, a boost in an arbitrary direction ought to be

[tex]{\Lambda^a}_b=\begin{pmatrix}\gamma & -\gamma \textbf{v}^T \\ -\gamma \textbf{v} & \textbf{I} + (\gamma - 1)\frac{\textbf{v} \textbf{v}^T}{\textbf{v}^T \textbf{v}}\end{pmatrix}[/tex]

(assuming c = 1 or equivalently x0 = ct).

However, when you say you are "putting all the indices downstairs" I'm not sure whether you mean you are ignoring the index position or whether you really are calculating [tex]\Lambda_{ab}[/tex] which differs from both [tex]\Lambda^{ab}[/tex] and [tex]{\Lambda^a}_b[/tex].
Thank you. That makes my R equal to

[tex]-\frac{1}{\gamma}(I+(\gamma-1)\frac{vv^T}{v^Tv})[/tex]

I should get [itex]-\gamma v^T[/itex] when I calculate [itex]\gamma v^T R[/itex], and it turns out I do:

[tex]\gamma v^T R=-v^T(I+(\gamma-1)\frac{vv^T}{v^Tv})=-v^T-(\gamma-1)v^T=-\gamma v^T[/tex]

And, yes, when I wrote [itex]\Lambda_{i0}[/itex] in the OP I was referring to components of the tensor which in the abstract index notation would appear as [itex]\Lambda^a{}_b[/itex]. I find that notation slightly easier to use in the type of calculations I had to do to get this result.

Hm, do you know if the general form of [itex]\Lambda[/itex] (i.e. not a pure boost) is the same except that the identity matrix in your expression is replaced with an orthogonal matrix that's independent of v? Maybe it's more complicated than that.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Fredrik said:
Hm, do you know if the general form of [itex]\Lambda[/itex] (i.e. not a pure boost) is the same except that the identity matrix in your expression is replaced with an orthogonal matrix that's independent of v? Maybe it's more complicated than that.
I'm no expert in this, but my geometrical intuition says it ought to be either [tex]Q \Lambda[/tex] or [tex]\Lambda Q[/tex], where [tex]\Lambda[/tex] is as above and Q is a space-only rotation, i.e. in the form

[tex]Q = \begin{pmatrix}1 & \textbf{0}^T \\ \textbf{0} & \textbf{Q}_0 \end{pmatrix}[/tex]

where Q0 is a 3 x 3 orthogonal matrix ([tex]\textbf{Q}_0^T \textbf{Q}_0 = \textbf{I}[/tex]).


Perhaps someone with more experience in this area could confirm that?
 

1. What is the best way to solve a simple problem that is driving me nuts?

The best way to solve a simple problem is to break it down into smaller, more manageable steps. Start by clearly defining the problem and then brainstorm possible solutions. Next, try each solution one at a time until you find one that works. If none of the solutions seem to work, take a break and come back to it later with a fresh perspective.

2. How do I stay motivated when dealing with a frustrating problem?

Staying motivated can be difficult when faced with a frustrating problem. One helpful tip is to remind yourself of the end goal and how solving this problem will benefit you. It can also be helpful to take breaks and practice self-care, such as getting enough sleep and exercise, to keep your mind and body in top shape.

3. What if I can't find a solution to my problem?

If you are struggling to find a solution to your problem, it may be helpful to seek assistance from someone else. This could be a colleague, friend, or even a professional in the field. Getting a fresh perspective or new ideas from someone else may help you find a solution that you may not have thought of on your own.

4. How can I prevent simple problems from driving me nuts in the future?

To prevent simple problems from causing frustration in the future, it may be helpful to practice problem-solving skills and to develop a positive mindset. Learning to approach problems with patience and determination can make a big difference in how you handle frustrating situations.

5. Can simple problems actually be beneficial?

Yes, simple problems can be beneficial because they provide an opportunity to practice problem-solving skills and develop resilience. They also allow us to learn from our mistakes and improve our problem-solving abilities for future challenges.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
966
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
3K
Back
Top