Deducing Formula from Lorentz Transformation Matrix

  • Thread starter unica
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Formula
In summary, the conversation is about a problem encountered while studying QFT and the question of how to deduce a specific formula involving a Lorentz transformation and a Minkowski metric. The participants discuss various approaches and clarify that the formula is not derivable and is instead the definition of a Lorentz transformation. They also discuss the general form of a Lorentz transformation and its relationship to boosts and rotations. The conversation ends with a request for further information or resources on the general Lorentz transformation.
  • #1
unica
28
0
I encountered a problem during studying QFT,can anyone help me out?

How to directly deduce this formula as follow:
[tex]g_{\mu\nu}\Lambda^{\mu}_{\rho}\Lambda^{\nu}_{\sigma}=g_{\rho\sigma}[/tex]

where g is a Minkowski metric and[tex]\Lambda[/tex] is a Lorentz transformation matrix.

I am looking forward to seeing the answer which is deduced directly from the left side to the right side.Thank you
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
How does the covariant components of a 2-nd rank tensor on Minkowski spacetime behave/transform when subject to a Lorentz transformation ?
 
  • #3
You can't really derive that - that is precisely the definition of a lorentz transformation.
 
  • #4
StatusX said:
You can't really derive that - that is precisely the definition of a lorentz transformation.


Yes,I know it imply that the interval of two points is invariant in the Lorentz transformation.

I have a plausible deduction as follow:
Because[tex]g=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}-1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{array}\right),\Lambda=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\gamma&-\beta\gamma&0&0\\-\beta\gamma&\gamma&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{array}\right)[/tex]
So we can directly do the prodcut of g and two [tex]\Lambda[/tex],and this product does equal to g.

But there is an error in the last deduction.Because of the difference of the relative velocity of that two[tex]\Lambda[/tex],we cannot use the same[tex]\beta[/tex]and[tex]\gamma[/tex] in that two[tex]\Lambda[/tex],and we should use [tex]\beta[/tex],[tex]\gamma[/tex] and [tex]\beta^{\prime}[/tex]and[tex]\gamma^{\prime}[/tex]respectively.After this revision,I cannot deduce the formula.

So I ask how to deduce it?
 
Last edited:
  • #5
It might be helpful to use rapidities:
[tex]\beta=\tanh\theta[/tex], [tex]\gamma=\cosh\theta[/tex] and [tex]\beta\gamma=\sinh\theta[/tex].
It might help recognizing identities among the "relativistic factors".

If you do matrix multiplication, if I'm not mistaken, you should be evaluating [tex] \Lambda^\top g \Lambda [/tex]
 
  • #6
But even using the rapidity,we still encounter the key point,that is ,the different rapidities between that two [tex]\Lambda[/tex],you can see that the one is[tex]\Lambda^{\mu}_{\rho}[/tex],the other is[tex]\Lambda^{\nu}_{\sigm a}[/tex],so during deduction we should use [tex]\theta[/tex] and [tex]\theta^{\prime}[/tex]respectively,and this revision will make us fail in reaching the right result
 
  • #7
unica said:
So I ask how to deduce it?

You don't. As StatusX said, this is the *definition* of a Lorentz transformation, and definitions aren't deduced.

You might want to verify that Lorentz transformations seen in elementary treatments of special relativity satisfy this equation. Then, the two [itex]\Lambda[/itex]'s are not representation of two different Lorentz transformation, they are representations of the same Lorentz transformation.

Also, note that the Lorentz transformations seen in elementary treatments of special relativity are example of special Lorentz transformations called boosts. A general (proper, orthochronous) Lorentz transformation [itex]\Lambda[/itex] can alway be written as the product of a boost [itex]B[/itex] with a rotation [itex]R[/itex],

[tex]\Lambda = BR[/tex].
 
  • #8
This might help, or it might confuse the issue further.

Let [itex]\mathbf{x}[/itex] be a 4-vector and [itex]\Lambda[/itex] be a Lorentz transformation. If [itex]\mathbf{x}' = \Lambda \mathbf{x}[/itex], then [itex]\mathbf{x}' \cdot \mathbf{x}' = \mathbf{x} \cdot \mathbf{x}[/itex], i.e.,

[tex] \left( \Lambda \mathbf{x} \right) \cdot \left( \Lambda \mathbf{x} \right ) = \mathbf{x} \cdot \mathbf{x}.[/tex]

Note that both [itex]\Lambda[/itex]'s are the same since each [itex]\mathbf{x}'[/itex] is the same. It is not the case that one [itex]\Lambda[/itex] is transformed with respect to the other [itex]\Lambda[/itex].

The equation that you wrote down is a component verstion of the above equation with the arbitrary [itex]\mathbf{x}[/itex]'s "divided out", and with the dots replaced by g's.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Thank you for Jones's response.But I am still confused.

Yes,I want to verify that Lorentz transformation seen in elementary treatments of special relativity satisfy this equation.And I accept that those two [itex]\Lambda[/itex]s represent the same Lorentz transformation.

But the [tex]\Lambda^{\mu}_{\rho}[/tex] originates from[tex]\overline{x}^{\mu}=\Lambda^{\mu}_{\rho}x_{\rho}[/tex],
the[tex] \Lambda^{\nu}_{\sigma}[/tex] originates from[tex]\overline{x}^{\nu}=\Lambda^{\nu}_{\sigma}x_{\sigma}[/tex],
and we can obviously see that the two relative velocities in the two [tex]\Lambda[/tex]s are generally not the same.So why these two[tex]\Lambda[/tex] represent the same Lorentz transformation?I admit that they are identical in frame but different in parameter.

so we can write them as follow:
[tex]\Lambda^{\mu}_{\rho}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\gamma&-\beta\gamma&0&0\\-\beta\gamma&\gamma&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{array }\right)[/tex]
and
[tex]\Lambda^{\nu}_{\sigma}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\gamma^{\prime}&-\beta^{\prime}\gamma^{\prime}&0&0\\-\beta^{\prime}\gamma^{\prime}&\gamma^{\prime}&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{array }\right)[/tex]
and if you do the product as follow:
[tex]\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\gamma&-\beta\gamma&0&0\\-\beta\gamma&\gamma&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{array }\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}-1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\gamma^{\prime}&-\beta^{\prime}\gamma^{\prime}&0&0\\-\beta^{\prime}\gamma^{\prime}&\gamma^{\prime}&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{array }\right)[/tex]
you cannot achieve the g of right hand side.But if we delete all the primes ,everything will go right.

Then,I am lack of the knowledge of the general Lorentz transformation.Can you give me some hints or links?Thank you very much.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
I have understood your mean.Thank you very much,George.
 

FAQ: Deducing Formula from Lorentz Transformation Matrix

How do I start deducing a formula?

The first step in deducing a formula is to identify the problem or question that needs to be solved. This will help guide your thinking and allow you to focus on relevant information.

What information do I need to deduce a formula?

To deduce a formula, you will need to have a clear understanding of the variables and their relationships in the given problem. It is also helpful to have a basic knowledge of mathematical principles and operations.

Can I use any mathematical method to deduce a formula?

There are various methods that can be used to deduce a formula, such as substitution, algebraic manipulation, and geometric reasoning. The most suitable method will depend on the specific problem and the information given.

How do I check if my deduced formula is correct?

To check the accuracy of your deduced formula, you can plug in values for the variables and see if the formula produces the expected results. You can also use logical reasoning and mathematical principles to validate your formula.

Can I deduce a formula for any problem?

While many problems can be solved by deducing a formula, there may be some that require a different approach. It is important to carefully consider the given information and determine if deducing a formula is the most effective method for solving the problem.

Back
Top