Square of the difference of four-vectors

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the expansion of the square of the difference of two four-vectors, specifically (p3 - p4)², within the context of Minkowski space and the associated metric. Participants explore various methods of expressing and expanding this expression, considering both algebraic manipulations and the implications of different conventions in vector notation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about the correct expansion of (p3 - p4)², questioning whether it can be expressed as (wp3 - wp4)² + (p3 - p4)² or (wp3 + wp4)² - (p3 + p4)².
  • There is a suggestion to explicitly write out (p3 - p4)² as (p3 - p4) · (p3 - p4) and to expand it algebraically.
  • Some participants emphasize that the dot product distributes over vector addition and subtraction, similar to scalar products.
  • One participant mentions potential sign errors in the algebra related to cross terms, indicating uncertainty in the calculations.
  • Another participant points out that the original question has two alternatives and suggests that the responses should help clarify misunderstandings rather than simply providing answers.
  • There are references to a specific equation (Equation 46.29) in a linked document, with some participants questioning its relevance or correctness in relation to the discussion.
  • Some participants express frustration over the lack of algebraic completion in the discussion and encourage others to derive the answers themselves rather than relying on forum responses.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct expansion of (p3 - p4)², with multiple competing views and expressions presented. The discussion remains unresolved, with ongoing debates about the validity of different approaches and the implications of various conventions.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of missing assumptions and potential misunderstandings regarding the algebraic manipulations involved. The discussion also highlights the dependence on definitions and conventions in vector notation, which may affect the interpretations of the expressions presented.

Arny_Toynbee
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
What is the correct way to expand (p3-p4)2 where p3 and p4 are 4-vectors, with metric gmu nu=diag[1,-1,-1,-1], p = [wp, p], where p is 3-vector, and wp= (p2+m2)(1/2)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you know how to take the dot product of two vectors when the metric isn't trivial? (If I'm allowed to phrase it that way.)
 
p3.p4 = (p30, p3) . (p40, p4)

and p30= wp3 etc.
 
And do you know how to expand that? In Euclidean 3-space ##\vec a.\vec b=a_xb_x+a_yb_y+a_zb_z##. Do you know the equivalent Minkowski 4-space expression?
 
Ibix said:
And do you know how to expand that? In Euclidean 3-space ##\vec a.\vec b=a_xb_x+a_yb_y+a_zb_z##. Do you know the equivalent Minkowski 4-space expression?

p3.p4 = = p30 p40 - p3.p4
 
Right. So when you replace the vector with a difference of two vectors what do you get?
 
Ibix said:
Right. So when you replace the vector with a difference of two vectors what do you get?
The question is
(p3 - p4)^2 - whether it is (wp3-wp4)2 + (p3 - p4)2

or is it

(wp3+wp4)2 - (p3 + p4)2

Hmmmmmm...what do I get?
 
Last edited:
Arny_Toynbee said:
.what do I get?

Instead of guessing, write it out explicitly: ##(p_3 - p_4)^2 = (p_3 - p_4) \cdot (p_3 - p_4)##, and then just expand out the product and do the algebra.
 
PeterDonis said:
Instead of guessing, write it out explicitly: ##(p_3 - p_4)^2 = (p_3 - p_4) \cdot (p_3 - p_4)##, and then just expand out the product and do the algebra.

How would you write out (p3 - p4)?

There's a bit of subtlety here, and not guessing, see for e.g. Equation 46.29 here
 
  • #10
Arny_Toynbee said:
How would you write out (p3 - p4)?

You don't need to do that. The 4-vector product distributes over addition and subtraction just like the ordinary scalar product does.
 
  • #11
Arny_Toynbee said:
How would you write out (p3 - p4)?

Arny_Toynbee said:
see for e.g. Equation 46.29

You do realize that that equation answers the question you just asked?
 
  • #12
Arny_Toynbee said:
How would you write out (p3 - p4)?

There's a bit of subtlety here, and not guessing, see for e.g. Equation 46.29 here
First, vector subtraction against an orthonormal basis is always just what you would expect.

Second, you don't need to do this anyway because dot product distributes over vector addition/subtraction.
 
  • #13
Arny_Toynbee said:
The question is
(p3 - p4)^2 - whether it is (wp3-wp4)2 + (p3 - p4)2

or is it

(wp3+wp4)2 - (p3 + p4)2

Hmmmmmm...what do I get?
You wrote down an expression for the dot product of two vectors in terms of the components. So if the vectors, instead of ##p_3## and ##p_4##, are both ##p##, and ##p=p_3-p_4## what do you get?
 
  • #14
PeterDonis said:
You do realize that that equation answers the question you just asked?

Actually, you may not realize, there might be a surprise on the way!
 
  • #15
Arny_Toynbee said:
Actually, you may not realize, there might be a surprise on the way!
Perhaps it would be helpful if you either completed the algebra we've been discussing or said what you think is wrong with 4.29 in the pdf you linked.
 
  • #16
Ibix said:
Perhaps it would be helpful if you either completed the algebra we've been discussing or said what you think is wrong with 4.29 in the pdf you linked.
The link provided may be using a different convention. Until now, I have provided all the algebra and the question. It was suggested that "...realize that the link you provided...has the solution...?" The original question has two alternatives, and it is useful to see what the forum members come up with. This is not a homework that is to be submitted to the forum in all its completeness, for it to be graded.
 
  • #17
Arny_Toynbee said:
The link provided may be using a different convention. Until now, I have provided all the algebra and the question. It was suggested that "...realize that the link you provided...has the solution...?" The original question has two alternatives
You mean your expressions in #7? Neither appears to be correct, as PeterDonis said in #8. How did you get them? I haven't tried to replicate 4.29 from your link, but it looks plausible at a quick glance.
 
  • #18
Arny_Toynbee said:
The link provided may be using a different convention. Until now, I have provided all the algebra and the question. It was suggested that "...realize that the link you provided...has the solution...?" The original question has two alternatives, and it is useful to see what the forum members come up with. This is not a homework that is to be submitted to the forum in all its completeness, for it to be graded.
The issue is that for everyone who has responded on this thread so far, your problem is trivial, yet you seem to have misunderstandings. We feel it is much more useful to help you resolve these than simply give you the answer.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: CalcNerd and berkeman
  • #19
Ibix said:
You mean your expressions in #7? Neither appears to be correct, as PeterDonis said in #8. How did you get them? I haven't tried to replicate 4.29 from your link, but it looks plausible at a quick glance.
I did replicate that equation, just doing the algebra in my head.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ibix
  • #20
PAllen said:
I did replicate that equation, just doing the algebra in my head.
Thank you. I was confident up to sign errors on the cross terms - it's been a long day...
 
  • #21
Arny_Toynbee said:
Until now, I have provided all the algebra

Have you done the algebra I asked for in post #8? If so, post it. If not, do it and post it.

Arny_Toynbee said:
The original question has two alternatives

Do you mean the question you asked in post #7? Neither of those alternatives is correct.

Now go do the algebra I asked you to do in post #8, so you can compute what the right answer is instead of guessing.

Arny_Toynbee said:
This is not a homework that is to be submitted to the forum in all its completeness, for it to be graded

No, but that doesn't mean we're just going to tell you an answer that you could derive for yourself by doing basic algebra. PF is not an oracle that you can feed guesses to and get yes/no answers back.
 
  • #22
Ibix said:
Thank you. I was confident up to sign errors on the cross terms - it's been a long day...
Sorry, sign errors in which equation? By the way, the way it is derived in the link is not necessarily consistent.

What is the correct answer (of the alternatives posted)?
 
  • #23
Arny_Toynbee said:
What is the correct answer (of the alternatives posted)?

Do the algebra yourself and find out what the correct answer is. As I said, PF is not an oracle.

Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: robphy and Ibix

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 178 ·
6
Replies
178
Views
10K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K