The special theory of relativity shows that intervals are invariant under Lorentz transform in the Minkowski space -time.
But how can we prove (any postulates or theory) that the length is an invariant in the Euclidean space?
-
1$\begingroup$ Why couldn't you find a proof yourself? $\endgroup$– my2ctsCommented Feb 4, 2019 at 19:42
-
$\begingroup$ Because the spatial rotation group $SO(3)$ is a subgroup of the Galilean group. And I think you spelled Galilean in a wrong way. Could you please correct the spelling? $\endgroup$– XenomorphCommented Feb 4, 2019 at 19:57
-
1$\begingroup$ @TheLastKnightofSilkRoad: Because the spatial rotation group SO(3) is a subgroup of the Galilean group. And I think you spelled Galilean in a wrong way. I don't think that's quite right. The rotation group is also a subgroup of the Lorentz group, but length isn't invariant under the Lorentz group. $\endgroup$– user4552Commented Feb 4, 2019 at 20:21
1 Answer
NOTE: This answers the OP’s original question about how to prove the invariance of length under Galilean transformations. The question has been edited and is now a completely different question.
A Galilean transformation is
$$\begin{align} x’&=x-v t\\ y’&=y\\ z’&=z\\ t’&=t \end{align}$$
when the relative motion between the frames is in the $x$-direction. We can always take coordinates in which this is the case.
“Length" in Galilean relativity means "spatial separation at the same instant"... for example between the events $(x_1,y_1,z_1,t)$ and $(x_2,y_2,z_2,t)$. (Note that all Galilean observers agree on what "at the same instant" means, because $t'=t$.) So the components of spatial separation for computing the length are
$$\begin{align} \Delta x’&=x_2'-x_1'=(x_2-vt)-(x_1-vt)=x_2-x_1=\Delta x\\ \Delta y’&=\Delta y\\ \Delta z’&=\Delta z. \end{align}$$
because the $vt$ term drops out when computing differences in $x$ at the same instant.
Thus the length
$$\begin{align} \ell'&=\sqrt{(\Delta x')^2+(\Delta y')^2+(\Delta z')^2}\\ &=\sqrt{(\Delta x)^2+(\Delta y)^2+(\Delta z)^2}\\ &=\ell \end{align}$$
is invariant.
Thanks to Ben Crowell for suggesting how to improve the answer.
-
$\begingroup$ Actually, we can prove the invariance of interval by applying Lorentz transform in this way. But invariance of interval is shown from the postulates of relativity and the isotropic nature of light(from the book Landau Lipschitz, classical theory of fields).From that we are constructing the lorentz transform. May I know that is there any postulates or assumptions which predicts the invariance of length without using the Galilean transform. I'm sorry that in my question I used Galilean transform to confuse you. $\endgroup$– walber97Commented Feb 5, 2019 at 0:27
-
$\begingroup$ @walber97 If you have a different question then ask it in a fresh question. Please do not make major changes to a question after it has received a relevant answer. $\endgroup$– PM 2RingCommented Feb 5, 2019 at 4:47
-
$\begingroup$ Sorry for that . Since G Smith has edited a note I am not editing the question again. The mistake won't be repeated again. $\endgroup$– walber97Commented Feb 5, 2019 at 10:05