Why Is SO+(1,3) Decomposable and Connected?

  • Thread starter Thread starter N1k1tA
  • Start date Start date
N1k1tA
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Why is the group of orthochronous proper Lorentz transformations connected?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It isn't so much that the group is connected. It is that only the connected sub group is physically interesting.

The physically interesting parts of the group that represent boosts. A boost of 0 should physically give you the same frame, so we want the connected sub group which contains that feature. Otherwise a boost of 0 would do something weird like flip time.
 
N1k1tA said:
Why is the group of orthochronous proper Lorentz transformations connected?

Think about what "connected" means: heuristically, it means that any transformation in the group can be turned into any other by a continuous series of "moves". As DaleSpam said, physically, we want the identity (the transformation that does nothing) to be in the group, so we are interested in Lorentz transformations that can be turned into the identity by a continuous series of moves. For example, a boost can be turned into the identity by continuously changing its velocity ##v## down to zero. Or a rotation can be turned into the identity by continuously changing the rotation angle ##\theta## down to zero.

Contrast the above with, for example, a transformation that flips the handedness of the spatial axes, or flips the direction of time. There is no way to continuously change a transformation like that into the identity; somewhere along the line you have to do a discrete "flip" of the handedness of the spatial axes or the direction of time. So transformations like that are not connected to the identity. The "proper orthochronous" Lorentz transformations are then simply the ones that don't do either of those things: "proper" means the handedness of the spatial axes isn't flipped, and "orthochronous" means the direction of time isn't flipped.
 
N1k1tA said:
Why is the group of orthochronous proper Lorentz transformations connected?
Because, we can show that any g \in SO_{+}^{\uparrow} (1,3) can be decomposed as g = \Lambda (R_{2}) \Lambda(L_{x}) \Lambda (R_{1}) , where \Lambda (R_{1}) and \Lambda (R_{2}) are spatial rotations and \Lambda (L_{x}) a Lorentz boost in the x^{1} direction.
 
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Back
Top