What is the Correct Setup for a Lorentz Transformation Matrix?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the setup and verification of a Lorentz transformation matrix, specifically the components of the matrix and the conditions under which it qualifies as a Lorentz transformation. The subject area is special relativity and linear algebra.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to establish the correct form of the Lorentz transformation matrix but expresses confusion regarding the setup of the matrix elements and the handling of vector indices. Some participants suggest verifying the transformation by showing that the metric tensor remains invariant under the transformation.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, with some providing guidance on how to approach the verification of the Lorentz transformation. There is an ongoing exploration of the definitions and relationships between the indices involved, but no consensus has been reached on the specific setup of the matrix.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of the professor's hint regarding excessive matrix multiplication indicating a potential error in the approach. Additionally, participants clarify the roles of different indices in the context of the metric tensor.

soothsayer
Messages
422
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement


Show that the following is a Lorentz Transform:
[itex]\Lambda _{j}^{i}=\delta _{j}^{i}+v^iv_j\frac{\gamma -1}{v^2}[/itex]
[itex]\Lambda _{j}^{0}=\gamma v_j , \Lambda _{0}^{0}=\gamma , \Lambda _{0}^{i}=\gamma v^i[/itex]

where [itex]v^2 =\vec{v}\cdot \vec{v}[/itex], and [itex]\delta _{j}^{i}[/itex] is the Kronecker Delta.

Homework Equations


[itex]\eta_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu'\nu'}\Lambda_{\mu}^{\mu'} \Lambda_{\nu}^{\nu'}[/itex]
[itex]\eta = \Lambda^T \eta \Lambda[/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution


I know how to go about proving a transform is a Lorentz transform, based on my "relevant equations", but I'm having a hard time setting the [itex]\Lambda[/itex] matrix up correctly. When I set up the matrix, I have terms in every cell, such as
[itex]\Lambda_{1}^{1}=1+v^1 v_1 \frac{\gamma -1}{v^2}[/itex]
and
[itex]\Lambda_{1}^{2}=v^2 v_1 \frac{\gamma -1}{v^2}[/itex]

and so on and so forth, but this feels wrong. I end up having to multiply two exceedingly complicated matrices along the way, which I know to be wrong (the professor hinted that excessive matrix multiplication was a sign you were doing the problem wrong.) How do I set things us? What I really want to know is, what is [itex]\Lambda_{j}^{i}[/itex]? How do I handle the vector indices (vi, vj)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you should do this, let [itex]g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu'\nu'}\Lambda_{\mu}^{\mu'} \Lambda_{\nu}^{\nu'}[/itex] then you sholud show that [itex]g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}[/itex]. This you can do calculating for each case [itex]g_{00},g_{0k}\, and\, g_{kl}[/itex] using
[tex]g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu'\nu'}\Lambda_{\mu}^{\mu'} \Lambda_{\nu}^{\nu'}=\eta_{00}\Lambda_{\nu}^{0}\Lambda_{\mu}^{0}+\eta_{ij}\Lambda_{\nu}^{i}\Lambda_{\mu}^{j}[/tex]
[tex]=-\Lambda_{\nu}^{0}\Lambda_{\mu}^{0}+\delta_{ij}\Lambda_{\nu}^{i} \Lambda_{\mu}^{j}=-\Lambda_{\nu}^{0}\Lambda_{\mu}^{0}+\Lambda_{\nu}^i\Lambda_{\mu}^i[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Ok, that makes some sense to me. I'll give it a try, thank you!

The only part I couldn't follow is where you came up with the [itex]\delta_{ij} \Lambda_{\nu}^{i} \Lambda_{\mu}^{j}[/itex]. Where did the delta come from? Sorry, I'm quite new at this sort of math.
 
soothsayer said:
The only part I couldn't follow is where you came up with the [itex]\delta_{ij} \Lambda_{\nu}^{i} \Lambda_{\mu}^{j}[/itex]. Where did the delta come from? Sorry, I'm quite new at this sort of math.
assuming that latin indices take on values 1,2,3 while greek indices 0,1,2,3 then [itex]\eta_{ik}=\delta_{ik}[/itex] while [itex]\eta_{00}=-1[/itex]
 
Ah, right, thank you!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K