- #1
binarybob0001
- 29
- 0
I am now studying the Lorentz transformation which shares some commonality with the Galiliean transformation. What I'm confused about is how they only seem to transform the x axis. It will help if I write it out. The Galilean transformation looks like:
[tex] x' = x-vt [/tex]
[tex] y' = y [/tex]
[tex] z' = z [/tex]
[tex] t' = t [/tex]
Although most of the books I have read do not bother, I will put this in matrix form because I will eventually do that with the Lorentz transformation.
[tex]
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & -v &
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 &
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 &
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{array} \right)
\letf(\begin{array}{c}
x &
y &
z &
t
\end{array} \right) =
\letf(\begin{array}{c}
x' &
y' &
z' &
t'
\end{array} \right)
[/tex]
Pay no attention to the strange layout of the 1 by 4 arrays. I could not figure out how to make them. It is clear that veolocity effects only the x component of the resulting vector. To me that makes no sense. Does anyone know why it is set up this way. I have had no classes on matrices but I work with computer graphics programming and have taught myself much over the summer. I am thinking the book is assuming I also transform the coordinates of the object so that it is traveling only with respect to x and then transform the coordinate space back to the orginal for the final transformation. In that case giving the Lorentz transformation as first listed is not adaquate. Am I right?
[tex] x' = x-vt [/tex]
[tex] y' = y [/tex]
[tex] z' = z [/tex]
[tex] t' = t [/tex]
Although most of the books I have read do not bother, I will put this in matrix form because I will eventually do that with the Lorentz transformation.
[tex]
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & -v &
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 &
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 &
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{array} \right)
\letf(\begin{array}{c}
x &
y &
z &
t
\end{array} \right) =
\letf(\begin{array}{c}
x' &
y' &
z' &
t'
\end{array} \right)
[/tex]
Pay no attention to the strange layout of the 1 by 4 arrays. I could not figure out how to make them. It is clear that veolocity effects only the x component of the resulting vector. To me that makes no sense. Does anyone know why it is set up this way. I have had no classes on matrices but I work with computer graphics programming and have taught myself much over the summer. I am thinking the book is assuming I also transform the coordinates of the object so that it is traveling only with respect to x and then transform the coordinate space back to the orginal for the final transformation. In that case giving the Lorentz transformation as first listed is not adaquate. Am I right?