- #36
- 14,373
- 6,866
You say that (52) is not wrong, but actually the catch is that there IS a trouble with (52). Namely, the expression [itex](S^{ -1 }\psi)'[/itex] suggests that you need to transform not only [itex]\psi[/itex], but also [itex]S^{ -1 }[/itex]. The confusing thing here is that [itex]S^{ -1 }[/itex] is itself an (inverse) transformation, so what does it mean to transform the transformation? For that reason, even though (52) seems right, formally it does not have a proper mathematical form.samalkhaiat said:OK, let us start with eq(53). If [itex]\Psi[/itex] is a SCALAR (as you defined it to be), then it should transforms trivially (by the identity matrix) under the Lorentz group, i.e., Lorentz transformations should not mix the components of [itex]\Psi[/itex]:
[tex]\Psi^{ ' } = ( S^{ - 1 } \psi )^{ ' } = I_{ 4 \times 4 } ( S^{ -1 } \psi ) = S^{ - 1 } \psi . \ \ \ (1)[/tex]
This is clearly inconsistent with (52) unless [itex]S = S^{ -1 } = I_{ 4 \times 4 }[/itex] which we know it is not. Therefore, either eq(52) is wrong (which is not wrong) or eq(53) does not define a scalar.
What does it mean? It means that (52) is valid only in ONE Lorentz frame (the one in which [itex]\Psi=\psi[/itex]), which is why your result above is inconsistent with (52). Nevertheless, all other equations in this Appendix are valid in all Lorentz frames (and have the proper mathematical form), which makes the whole theory consistent because after (53) there is no further reference to Eq. (52).
Eq. (52) is just a more elegant (but perhaps also more confusing) way to write the second equation in (28). The only purpose of the confusing equation (52) is to justify Eq. (53). But unlike (52), equation (53) is valid in all frames so should not be confusing.
Last edited: