1
$\begingroup$

Note: For the following question I'm using the non-standard $(x,y,z,ct)$ notation.

I'm wanting to represent an arbitrary boost in the $\hat{\beta}$ direction by doing a similarity transformation on the frame boosted in the $z$ direction to a frame with axes $\{{r_1,r_2,\hat{\beta}}\}$, allowing $r_1$ and $r_2$ to be any two mutually orthonormal vectors, as well as orthogonal to $\hat{\beta}$. So the boost matrix and transformation matrix are, respectively,

$$L=\pmatrix{1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&\gamma&-\gamma\beta\\0&0&-\gamma\beta&\gamma}$$

$$R = \pmatrix{x\cdot r_1&y\cdot r_1&z\cdot r_1&0\\x\cdot r_2&y\cdot r_2&z\cdot r_2&0\\x\cdot\hat{\beta}&y\cdot\hat{\beta}&z\cdot\hat{\beta}&0\\0&0&0&1} = \pmatrix{r_{1x}&r_{1y}&r_{1z}&0\\r_{2x}&r_{2y}&r_{2z}&0\\\beta_{x}/\beta&\beta_{y}/\beta&\beta_{z}/\beta&0\\0&0&0&1}$$

Carrying out the similarity transformation,

$$\tilde{L}=RLR^T=\pmatrix{r_{1x}^2+r_{1y}^2+\gamma r_{1z}^2&r_{1x}r_{2x}+r_{1y}r_{2y}+\gamma r_{1z}r_{2z}&(r_{1x}\beta_{x}+r_{1y}\beta_{y}+\gamma r_{1z}\beta_{z})/\beta&-\gamma r_{1z}\beta\\r_{1x}r_{2x}+r_{1y}r_{2y}+\gamma r_{1z}r_{2z}&r_{2x}^2+r_{2y}^2+\gamma r_{2z}^2&(r_{2x}\beta_{x}+r_{2y}\beta_{y}+\gamma r_{2z}\beta_{z})/\beta&-\gamma r_{2z}\beta\\(r_{1x}\beta_{x}+r_{1y}\beta_{y}+\gamma r_{1z}\beta_{z})/\beta&(r_{2x}\beta_{x}+r_{2y}\beta_{y}+\gamma r_{2z}\beta_{z})/\beta&(\beta_x^2+\beta_y^2+\gamma\beta_z^2)/\beta^2&-\gamma\beta_z\\-\gamma r_{1z}\beta&-\gamma r_{2z}\beta&-\gamma\beta_z&\gamma}$$

Utilizing mutual orthogonality to eliminate all components of the $r$'s except $r_{1z}$ and $r_{2z}$ results in

$$\tilde{L}=\pmatrix{1+r_{1z}^2(\gamma-1)&r_{1z}r_{2z}(\gamma-1)&r_{1z}\beta_z(\gamma-1)/\beta&-\gamma\beta r_{1z}\\r_{1z}r_{2z}(\gamma-1)&1+r_{2z}^2(\gamma-1)&r_{2z}\beta_z(\gamma-1)/\beta&-\gamma\beta r_{2z}\\r_{1z}\beta_z(\gamma-1)/\beta&r_{2z}\beta_z(\gamma-1)/\beta&1+\beta_z^2(\gamma-1)/\beta^2&-\gamma\beta_z\\-\gamma\beta r_{1z}&-\gamma\beta r_{2z}&-\gamma\beta_z&\gamma}$$

And the end desired result from the exercise is

$$\tilde{L} = RLR^T = \pmatrix{1+\frac{\beta_{x}^2(\gamma-1)}{\beta^2}&\frac{\beta_{x}\beta_{y}(\gamma-1)}{\beta^2}&\frac{\beta_{x}\beta_{z}(\gamma-1)}{\beta^2}&-\beta_{x}\gamma\\\frac{\beta_{x}\beta_{y}(\gamma-1)}{\beta^2}&1+\frac{\beta_{y}^2(\gamma-1)}{\beta^2}&\frac{\beta_{y}\beta_{z}(\gamma-1)}{\beta^2}&-\beta_y\gamma\\\frac{\beta_{x}\beta_{z}(\gamma-1)}{\beta^2}&\frac{\beta_{y}\beta_{z}(\gamma-1)}{\beta^2}&1+\frac{\beta_{z}^2(\gamma-1)}{\beta^2}&-\beta_z\gamma\\-\beta_x\gamma&-\beta_y\gamma&-\beta_z\gamma&\gamma}$$

My confusion: the exercise states $r_1$ and $r_2$ to be any two orthonormal vectors, but I specifically need them to have their $z$-components be $r_{1z}=\beta_x/\beta$ and $r_{2z}=\beta_y/\beta$ to get agreement with the matrix above. How am I going about this in the wrong way so that the result is dependent on these $z$-components of $r_1$ and $r_2$? Perhaps I'm supposed to utilize invariance of the determinant under similarity transformations, $|\tilde{L}|=|L|$, to eliminate one more of those $z$-components? That just seems like an algebraic nightmare, and with my matrix being so close in form I don't think it's the correct approach.

$\endgroup$
18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In simularity transformation, the determinate of $L$ should equal the determinate of $\tilde{L}.$ And maybe I misunderstood the problem, but isn't a Lorentz boost in the $z$ direction $$L=\begin{bmatrix} \gamma & 0 & 0 & -\beta\gamma \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ -\beta\gamma & 0 & 0 & \gamma \\ \end{bmatrix}$$ $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 1, 2020 at 6:02
  • $\begingroup$ I just realized the ordering of your $4$-vectors components are non-standard - you're writing them as: $$\left[ \begin {array}{cccc} {\it x} \\ y\\ z \\ t\end {array} \right]$$ The standard ordering of the $4$-vector components is: $$\left[ \begin {array}{cccc} {\it t} \\ x\\ y\\ z\end {array} \right]$$ It doesn't really matter but you might want to keep this in mind when posting questions. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 1, 2020 at 20:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A similarity transformation, that is a rotation in space, has meaning between frames at rest to one another. So, let $\;\mathrm S\boldsymbol{\equiv}Oxyzt\:$ your initial frame, $\;\mathrm S_{\alpha}\boldsymbol{\equiv}O_{\alpha}xyz_{\alpha}t_{\alpha}\:$ the frame boosted in the $z-$direction and $\;\mathrm S_{\beta}\boldsymbol{\equiv}O_{\beta}x_{\beta}y_{\beta}z_{\beta}t_{\beta}\:$ the frame boosted in the $\hat{\beta}-$direction. To make a rotation in space from $\;\mathrm S_{\alpha}\:$ to $\;\mathrm S_{\beta}\:$ these frames must be at rest to one another, but.... $\endgroup$
    – Voulkos
    Commented Jan 5, 2020 at 1:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ...this is impossible if $\hat{\beta}(\equiv \hat{z_{\beta}})\boldsymbol{\ne}\hat{z}$. $\endgroup$
    – Voulkos
    Commented Jan 5, 2020 at 1:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A similarity transformation is the transformation of a field which occurs after the $4$-vector has been Lorentz transformed. And since you appear to be performing at least $2$ pure boost in $2$ different directions - and possibly with $2$ different velocities, the Lorentz frames would have precessed - and you can't get back to the original frame without a composite boost and a separate $3$d space rotation. See Thomas Precession "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_precession" and the comments by @Frobenius. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 6, 2020 at 4:02

2 Answers 2

1
+50
$\begingroup$

I confess I am not completely comfortable with this problem. (Witness my first attempt at an answer.)

Pressing ahead regardless, I think that $\vec{r_1}$ and $\vec{r_2}$ are constrained by the requirement that the Lorentz transformation $\tilde{L}$ be a pure boost; that is, that spatial vectors perpendicular to the boost direction $\vec{\beta}/\beta$ are left unchanged by $\tilde{L}$. (These vectors form a 2-dimensional eigenspace with eigenvalue 1.)

Specifically, solving $\tilde{L} \vec{r_1} = \vec{r_1}$ and $\tilde{L} \vec{r_2} = \vec{r_2}$ (or components thereof) yields 2 conditions which are satisfied by choosing $r_{1z}=\beta_x/\beta$ and $r_{2z}=\beta_y/\beta$.

For example, the $x$-component of $\tilde{L} \vec{r_1} = \vec{r_1}$ simplifies to:

$$ r_{1x} r_{1z} + r_{1y} r_{2z} + r_{1z} \beta_z/\beta = 0 $$

With the substitutions, this equation becomes an inner product of $r_1$ and $\beta$, which vanishes by the orthogonality of $r_1$ and $\beta$.

The other components yield the same or a similar equation which is satisfied by the same substitutions.

UPDATE:

Things are clearer now. My answer above was problematic in that it put some additional constraints on $\hat{r_1}$ and $\hat{r_2}$ beyond their being orthonormal to each other and $\hat{\beta}$, while the problem stated that any orthonormal pair should work. In fact, any such pair $\hat{r_1}$ and $\hat{r_2}$ yields a symmetric $\tilde{L}$, and hence a pure boost, so why should additional constraints be required?

The answer is that additional constraints are not required, if one chooses the matrix $R$ to rotate $\hat{z}$ into $\hat{\beta}$ ($R \hat{z}=\hat{\beta}$). Specifically, $R$ should have been the transpose of the one you used. With this change, the calculation you performed gives the expected result, with no additional constraints on $\hat{r_1}$ and $\hat{r_2}$ required.

(Conversely, with the version of $R$ you employed, it was necessary that $r_{1z}=\beta_x/\beta$ and $r_{2z}=\beta_y/\beta$ so that $\hat{z}$ was rotated into $\hat{\beta}$.)

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Can you elaborate on how those conditions are the result of requiring invariance of proper time? It seems to be my hold up $\endgroup$
    – dsm
    Commented Jan 4, 2020 at 12:50
  • $\begingroup$ @dsm, that idea of mine was not correct, sorry. I think my revised answer does better. $\endgroup$
    – Art Brown
    Commented Jan 7, 2020 at 0:18
  • $\begingroup$ Requiring $\tilde{L}r_1=r_1$ and $\tilde{L}r_2=r_2$ makes sense, but I'm at a loss for getting those to pop out $r_{1z}=\beta_x/\beta$ and $r_{2z}=\beta_y/\beta$. In my most simplified form of $\tilde{L}$ I've eliminated $\beta_x$ and $\beta_y$ using orthogonality, and I'm not seeing how those components come back into the game from those two matrix equations. Am I missing something? $\endgroup$
    – dsm
    Commented Jan 7, 2020 at 6:14
  • $\begingroup$ I canceled common factors in the equation. What was left could be expressed as the vanishing of the inner product of $r$ and another vector. That second vector becomes $\beta$ if the two subs in question are strategically made (bringing $\beta_x$ etc. back into the game) and satisfying the equation by orthogonality. $\endgroup$
    – Art Brown
    Commented Jan 7, 2020 at 6:36
  • $\begingroup$ Ahhh, I see it! Thank you. That was confusing me for way too long. And rather than substitution, it's clearer for me to just subtract off the orthogonality condition of $r_1$ and $\beta$ from that $x$-component equation to see that we must have those $z$-components on account of $r_1$ (or $r_2$ if using the other equation) having arbitrary $x$ and $y$ components; i.e. $$r_{1x}(r_{1z}-\beta_x/\beta)+r_{1y}(r_{2z}-\beta_y/\beta)=0\hspace{1mm}\Rightarrow r_{1z}=\beta_x/\beta\hspace{1mm}\text{and}\hspace{1mm}r_{2z}=\beta_y/\beta$$ I appreciate your persistence, cheers :) $\endgroup$
    – dsm
    Commented Jan 7, 2020 at 8:37
1
$\begingroup$

The general Lorentz transformation matrix is:

$$L=\begin{bmatrix} \gamma & -\gamma\,\vec{\beta}^T \\ -\gamma\,\vec{\beta} & I_3+\frac{\gamma-1}{\vec{v}\,\cdot \vec{v}}\,\vec{\beta}\,\vec{\beta}^T \\ \end{bmatrix}$$

if you rotate the Lorentz matrix then:

$\vec{\beta}\mapsto R\,\vec{\beta}$

where R is $3\times 3$ orthogonal Rotation Matrix

$R^T=\left[\vec{r_1},\vec{r_2},\vec{r_3}\right]$ and $R^\,R^T=I_3$

because $R\,\vec{\beta}$ in your case is :

$$\beta_z\,\begin{bmatrix} r_{1z} \\ r_{2z} \\ r_{3z} \\ \end{bmatrix}$$

only the z-components of the vectors that create the rotation matrix R are involved

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know what you are trying to do here. Why are you applying $R$ to $\vec{\beta}$, the direction in which I am rotating the $z$ direction to? And what are you trying to convey with the $\beta_z(r_{1z},r_{2z},r_{3z})^T$? And what is $r_3$? All I'm trying to do is eliminate $r_{1z}$ and $r_{2z}$ in my final expression to get that final matrix; i.e. not to depend on any components of the orthogonal $r$ directions. $\endgroup$
    – dsm
    Commented Jan 3, 2020 at 15:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.