6
$\begingroup$

If we take the Minkowski metric, $\eta_{\mu\nu}=(1,-1,-1,-1)$, instead of the usual $(-1,1,1,1)$, does this change the form of the Lorentz Transform? I think the standard Lorentz Transform looks like: $$ \left( \begin{matrix} \gamma & -\gamma\beta & 0 & 0\\ -\gamma\beta & \gamma & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\ 0 & 0 &0 & 1 \end{matrix} \right) $$

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The conventional way to indicate which one you are using is by writing $\mathrm{Tr}(g) = \pm 1$ or saying "using the trace equals (minus) one metric". $\endgroup$ – dmckee Jan 13 '13 at 3:56
11
$\begingroup$

An interesting question indeed :-) Yes, you can flip the overall sign of the Minkowski metric, and in fact a lot of physicists do this! The sign choice $\operatorname{diag}(-1, 1, 1, 1)$ is conventional in fundamental quantum field theory and in quantum gravity, if I remember correctly, whereas $\operatorname{diag}(1, -1, -1, -1)$ is conventional in particle physics.

This doesn't affect the Lorentz transform, though. If you apply the Lorentz transform to a metric tensor, it computes as $g'_{\alpha\beta} = \Lambda_\alpha^\mu \Lambda_\beta^\nu g_{\mu\nu}$, and so you will automatically come out with the same sign convention that you put in.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ However, four-vector norms change sign. A timelike one (inside the light-cone) has a negative norm when using (-1+1+1+1) and positive otherwise. Einstein used (-1 -1 -1 +1) in the Princeton Lectures, for GR. Some of the equations result also formally different. $\endgroup$ – Eduardo Guerras Valera Jan 13 '13 at 7:44
  • $\begingroup$ There is an annoying subtlety to this: The possible spinor representations are not always the same for the flipped overall sign, for instance, in this case one would have to distinguish between Majorana and pseudo-Majorana spinors. In the end, this is irrelevant to the physics in all cases known to me, but formally, the two choices are not fully equivalent. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Oct 3 '16 at 8:02
  • $\begingroup$ Wald is making an interesting comment on this and spinors in his book on general relativity. He's using the $(-1, +1, +1, +1)$ convention in his book, then change to $(+1, -1, -1, -1)$ in the chapter about spinors (same book). Also, Misner-Thorne-Wheeler are giving a nice summary of all conventions used in the world, in their Big Black Book "Gravitation". $\endgroup$ – Cham Oct 3 '16 at 13:21

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.