6
$\begingroup$

Special relativity is based on the fact that the proper time is always the same in any inertial frame:

$$ds^2=(cdt)^2-dx^2=ds'^2=(cdt')^2 -dx'^2 $$

If I understand it correctly this is based on the outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that light has the same speed in any inertial frame. And therefore we have $ds^2=0=ds'^2$.

However if we do not have light but a particle which does not propagate with the speed of light we have $ds\neq 0$ and in this case it is not clear to me why we should have $ds^2=ds'^2$.

Weinberg comments about this in his book ... page 27 and 28:

Incidentally, if we had only assumed that the transformations $x\to x'$ leave $ds^2$ invariant when $ds^2=0$, that is, for a particle moving at the speed of light, then we would have found that these transformations are in general non-linear, and form a 15-parameter group, the conformal group, which contains the Lorentz transformations as a subgroup. But the statement that a free particle moves at constant velocity would not be an invariant statement unless the velocity were that of light, and since there are massive particles in the world, we must reject the conformal group as a possible invariance.

I don't understand this... Weinberg is saying in the last sentence that $ds^2$ is not invariant a particle moves not at the speed of light. This is clear but what tells us that $ds^2$ has to be invariant in the case when $ds\neq 0$? What experiment shows this? Weinbergs first sentences sound like that when we use the conformal group then $ds^2=ds'^2$ if $ds^2=0$ but when $ds^2\neq 0$ the we do not have necessarily that $ds^2=ds'^2$...

$\endgroup$
1

2 Answers 2

3
+50
$\begingroup$

I will try to rephrase a bit how I understand what Weinberg is saying. A priori we only know what for two different inertial reference frames we have $ds^2 = ds'^2$ when $ds^2 = 0$. We then try to find the most general coordinate transformations of spacetime which possess this property. This way we discover conformal transformations. However, when we try to look what happens under a general conformal transformation to a worldline of a massive particle we find an unpleasant "surprise": it might be that in another "conformal frame" (obtained from the initial frame via a conformal transformation) a free massive particle does not move with constant velocity. But we would like to have the usual property of inertial frames that free massive particles move with constant velocity. The whole conformal group does not satisfy this, so we restrict ourselves to its subgroup which has the desired property, namely Lorentz group which turns out to have $ds'^2 = ds^2$ in any case.

$\textbf{Edit}$: Let us show explicitly that conformal transformations could make constant velocity not constant. For simplicity we will work in 2d (one time and one space dimension) but we will consider conformal transformation which is fully generalizable to higher dimensions (2d is kind of special when it comes to conformal transformations, but we won't focus on these specialities). As an example of such a conformal transformation we will take inversion:

$$x'^\mu = \frac{x^\mu}{x^2}.$$

Assume that in the $x^\mu$ coordinates our particle has the following worldline, parametrized by some $\lambda$:

$$X^\mu = (\lambda, x_0 + \beta \lambda)$$

where $\beta$ is speed of the particle in units of $c$ and $x_0$ is its' position at the moment $t=0$. The above worldline simply means $x(t) = x_0 + \beta t$, so the particle is moving at constant velocity. After a conformal transformation the worldline becomes:

$$X'^\mu = \frac{X^\mu}{X^2} = \frac{X^\mu}{\lambda^2 (1-\beta^2)} = \frac{1}{\lambda^2 (1-\beta^2)} (\lambda, x_0 + \beta \lambda) = (\frac{1}{(1-\beta^2)\lambda}, \beta \frac{1}{(1-\beta^2)\lambda} + \frac{x_0}{(1-\beta^2)\lambda^2}) = (\lambda', \beta \lambda' + x_0 (1-\beta^2)\lambda'^2)$$

where we introduced a new notation: $\lambda' = \dfrac{1}{(1-\beta^2)\lambda}$ which simply has the interpretation of time in the transformed coordinates. So after a conformal transformation our particle moves with acceleration:

$$x'(t') = \beta t' + (1-\beta^2)x_0 t'^2.$$

$\endgroup$
17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot for your answer. Ok let me rephrase this. In frame 1 a particle moves with constant speed $v_1$. Doing a conformal transformation to a different frame could lead to the fact that from frame 2 we see the particle moving not with a constant speed but for example accelerated. Is this what you want to say? If yes, how can I see that explicitly? Another question: Why do we require $ds^2=(cdt)^2 -dx^2$ to be invariant? If we just take as an input that "the speed of light is invariant in all inertial systems" then we could also say that $ds=cdt-dx$ is an invariant!? $\endgroup$
    – user255856
    Commented Apr 20, 2021 at 16:31
  • $\begingroup$ I have expanded my answer to show explicitly how making a conformal transformation could lead to acceleration. Regarding your other question, think of it as generalization of the Pythagorean theorem. We know that the correct notion of distance in Euclidean space is $dl^2 = dx^2+dy^2+dz^2$. If you want special relativity to contain Euclidean geometry when you restrict to spatial part, interval should contain the combination $dx^2+dy^2+dz^2$. Then we just need to add time in such a way that we get 0 for particles moving with the speed of light which fixes $ds^2 = c^2dt^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2$. $\endgroup$
    – Viking
    Commented Apr 22, 2021 at 19:52
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the edit! But why do you have $X^2=X^\mu X_\mu=\lambda^2(1-\beta^2)$? I get $X^2=X_\mu X^\mu=\lambda^2-(x_o+\beta\lambda)^2$... $\endgroup$
    – user255856
    Commented Apr 22, 2021 at 22:05
  • $\begingroup$ And after seeing this explicitly I guess my question remains. Why do we have to restrict our self to a subgroup of the conformal group, i.e. the Lorentz group? What is the main argument for that? $\endgroup$
    – user255856
    Commented Apr 22, 2021 at 22:09
  • $\begingroup$ You are right, I did not do it carefully enough and will have to fix that. Probably the result won't be as simple and illustrative, but I have no doubt that the conclusion will still hold. Regarding your second comment, if I understand your question correctly, we are looking for the general transformation law between two inertial frames. We know that in inertial frames free massive particles move with constant velocity. We see that a general conformal transformation does not preserve motion with constant velocity. On the other hand, a Lorentz transformation does. $\endgroup$
    – Viking
    Commented Apr 23, 2021 at 4:02
3
$\begingroup$

Let me say some words about how we determine symmetries in physics. If we were to imagine closing our eyes and forgetting we ever saw the world, we would have no idea what symmetry groups might be found when we open our eyes. The flip side of this is that, before we open our eyes, any symmetry group is possible. As soon as we open our eyes and look at things, we can start ruling possibilities out.

So, if we accept that experiment has informed us that $ds^2=0$ is preserved by our symmetry group (but, importantly, the experiment does not tell us anything about whether $ds^2$ is invariant if it isn't zero), then we can ask "what is the largest group of symmetries which preserve $ds^2=0$." The answer, as Weinberg notes, is the conformal group. However, since we don't really know about whether $ds^2$ should be invariant when it's non-zero, all we can say is that our symmetry group should be the conformal group or some subgroup thereof.

There are only so many (continuous) subgroups of the conformal group. Really, the only one is the Poincare group (and subgroups thereof, like Lorentz, rotation, etc). Since there aren't that many options, we can just start working out the consequences of each possibility. Once you do that, you quickly find that conformal is too restrictive and, for example, would not allow QED for instance. So we conclude that we don't have conformal symmetry but rather have it's subgroup, Poincare symmetry.

We can do the same thing for the discrete symmetries and ask whether they are in the symmetry group or not, which is why a lot of particle physics around the 60's and 70's was focused on parity, time reversal, and charge conjugation.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Why should the conformal symmetry group be too restrictive, when the Poincare group is a subgroup? It should be the other way around? The Poincare group should be more restrictive than the conformal symmetry group!? $\endgroup$
    – user255856
    Commented Apr 22, 2021 at 22:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @jojo123456 No. The larger the symmetry group, the more conditions you need to satisfy, the fewer things you can write down which satisfy all the symmetries you're demanding. This is why QED is Poincare invariant, but it is not conformal invariant. If your statement was correct, then QED being Poincare invariant would necessitate that it's also conformal invariant (which it is not). $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 22, 2021 at 22:19

Your Answer

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