Is it possible to express two Lorentz boosts $A_x(\beta)$ and $A_y(\beta)$ along the x/y-axis as one boost described by $A(\overrightarrow \delta)$?

To answer this, I start by defining $\theta \equiv \arctan\left(\beta\right)$ and $\beta \equiv v/c ,$ then: $$ \begin{align} A_x(\beta) &= \begin{bmatrix} \cosh(\theta) & \sinh(\theta) & 0 \\ \sinh(\theta) & \cosh(\theta) & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}\\[10px] A_y(\beta) &= \begin{bmatrix} \cosh(\theta) & 0 & \sinh(\theta) \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \sinh(\theta) & 0 & \cosh(\theta) \end{bmatrix} \\[10px] A(\overrightarrow \delta) &= \begin{bmatrix}\gamma & \gamma \delta^1 & \gamma \delta^2 \\ \gamma \delta^1 & 1+B_{11} & B_{12} \\ \gamma \delta^2 & B_{21} & 1+B_{22} \end{bmatrix} \\[10px] B_{ij} &= \frac{\gamma -1}{\delta^2}\beta_i\delta_j \end{align} $$

I first calculated: $$ A_y(\beta)*A_x(\beta) = \begin{bmatrix} \cosh^2(\beta) & \cosh(\beta)*\sinh(\beta) & \sinh(\beta) \\ \sinh(\beta) & \cosh(\beta) & 0 \\ \cosh(\beta)* \sinh(\beta) & \sinh^2(\beta) & \cosh(\beta) \end{bmatrix} $$ then since $B_{ij}=B_{ji} ,$ I get $$ \sinh^2\left(\theta\right) = 0 \quad\Rightarrow\quad \theta=0 \quad\Rightarrow\quad v=0 \,. $$

That would mean, that it is not possible to express two subsequent boosts in $x\text{-}$ and $y\text{-}$ direction as a combined boost. This does seem a bit odd to me and I wonder if I made a mistake in my computation.

  • $\begingroup$ Related. $\endgroup$ – Cosmas Zachos May 16 '19 at 16:58
  • $\begingroup$ Also related. $\endgroup$ – J.G. May 16 '19 at 18:45
  • $\begingroup$ Related : General matrix Lorentz transformation $\endgroup$ – Frobenius May 16 '19 at 21:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Welcome to SE.Physics! I edited in a bit of formatting. Please feel free to edit it to make any fixes. In particular, I read the definitions after the quote block as your own work rather than as something provided by the problem statement, which I hope was a correct interpretation. $\endgroup$ – Nat May 16 '19 at 22:46

It is not possible. Two boosts are, however, equivalent to one boost combined with one rotation! This surprising rotation is known as a Thomas-Wigner rotation.

This rotation arises because two infinitesimal boosts do not commute; their commutator is an infinitesimal rotation. In terms of rotation generators $J_i$ and boost generators $K_i$, the Lorentz algebra is

$$[J_i,J_j]=\epsilon_{ijk}J_k$$ $$[K_i,K_j]=-\epsilon_{ijk}J_k \,\text{(!)}$$ $$[J_i,K_j]=\epsilon_{ijk}K_k$$

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you for the explanation and the link. $\endgroup$ – Kekks May 16 '19 at 16:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is really interesting! I never gave enough time to appreciate the asymmetry between the commutation relations of $J_i$s being closed among $J_i$s and the commutation relations of $K_i$s not being so. Many thanks to @Kekks as well :) Is there an interesting imprint of this asymmetry when we re-write $\mathbb{so}(1,3)$ as $\mathbb{su}(2)\times\mathbb{su}(2)$ where $J_i$ and $K_i$ insert the formulae rather "democratically"? $\endgroup$ – Dvij D.C. May 16 '19 at 17:12
  • $\begingroup$ @DvijMankad I’m not sure what you are asking, but my understanding of Lie algebras probably isn’t strong enough to answer even if you clarify it. $\endgroup$ – G. Smith May 16 '19 at 17:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I just meant that when we go to $\mathbb{su}(2)\times\mathbb{su}(2)$, we construct its generators out of the $K_i$s and $J_i$s as $A_i=\frac{J_i+iK_i}{2}$ and $B_i=\frac{J_i-iK_i}{2}$ and then, these $A_i$s form their own group and so do $Bi$s and they seem on an equal footing unlike $J_i$s and $K_i$s. I was (probably naively) wondering if some imprint of the fact that $J_i$s and $K_i$s are not on equal footing might show up somewhere in this latter formalism. Maybe in relation to chirality? $\endgroup$ – Dvij D.C. May 16 '19 at 18:02
  • $\begingroup$ @DvijMankad That’s an interesting question. If someone doesn’t answer it here, please consider posting it as a question. $\endgroup$ – G. Smith May 16 '19 at 19:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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