I have always struggled to visualize the correctness of the commutation relation for the generators of the boost in the Lorentz group. We have $$[K_i,K_j] = i \epsilon_{ijk} L_k$$ I fail to picture this. For definiteness' sake, let's take a point $\vec{x}$ in my coordinate system, lying in the $O_{xy}$ plane. The difference between boosting first in the $x$ and then in the $y$ direction, and boosting first in the $y$ and then in the $x$ direction ammounts simply to a rotation in the $Oxy$ plane, since $$[K_1,K_2] = iL_3$$ I must be doing something wrong when I draw this on a paper. I realize that this holds at the infinitesimal level, but a simple drawing should be able to realize this principle 'at first order' shouldn't it ? My problem is that when I draw it, I end up with the same situation regardless of which direction I boost into first.

  • $\begingroup$ Thomas precession might be a good example. $\endgroup$ – jinawee Jun 19 '13 at 21:04
  • $\begingroup$ $K_1$ exchanges $x$ and $t$, $K_2$ exchanges $y$ and $t$, $L_3$ is a $\pi/2$ rotation in the $xy$ plane. It is a tri-dimensional problem. For instance, begin with the initial point $x,y,t = 1,0,0$ $\endgroup$ – Trimok Jun 19 '13 at 21:07
  • $\begingroup$ You might find this paper helpful: Rhodes and Semon, Am. J. Phys. 72(7)2004, bates.edu/~msemon/RhodesSemonFinal.pdf . They have a way of representing boosts on a disk. I have a shorter exposition here lightandmatter.com/genrel (subsection 2.5.3) on how this implies that the product of two boosts isn't a pure boost. $\endgroup$ – user4552 Jun 19 '13 at 23:44
  • $\begingroup$ @BenCrowell Thank you, very nice readings. I find your(?) book very good. The 'velocity disk' example in section 2.5.3 is convincing. $\endgroup$ – Mathusalem Jun 20 '13 at 7:00

Visualizing this is, in my opinion, pretty tricky because boosts generally act in four dimensions (time included!) and it's hard to draw 4D on a piece of paper. Fortunately, for this question, you can get around this artistic limitation.

Here's what I did right after reading your question to attempt to visualize what's going on. I encourage you to try to draw each step. The picture I ended up drawing is at the end.

If we order our coordinates in the standard way $(t,x,y,z)$, then boosts with boost parameter $\beta$ in the $x$ and $y$ directions are given by $$ \Lambda_x(\beta) = \left( \begin{array}{cccc} \gamma & -\gamma\beta & 0 & 0 \\ -\gamma\beta & \gamma & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ \end{array} \right), \qquad \Lambda_y(\beta)=\left( \begin{array}{cccc} \gamma & 0 & -\gamma\beta & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ -\gamma\beta & 0 & \gamma & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ \end{array} \right) $$ We can now attempt to apply these transformations to some point in the $x$-$y$ plane in different orders and draw the results. The key to visualizing the math I'm about to do is to note that both of these boosts do nothing to the $z$ coordinate of any spacetime point because there is a $1$ in the lower right hand corner of each transformation matrix with zeros to its left and above. As a result, we can ignore the $z$ axis and draw spacetime diagrams in which the time axis is vertical and the $x$-$y$ plane is horizontal.

For simplicity, let's see what happens to the point $e_x=(0,1,0,0)^t$. Here I will use a superscript $t$ for transpose since I want to emphasize that points in spacetime will be written as column vectors. The point $e_x$ is simply the three-dimensional unit vector along the $x$-axis at time zero. What happens when we apply a small boost in the $y$-direction followed by a small boost in the $x$-direction? Well, let's compute; $$ \Lambda_x(\beta)\Lambda_y(\beta)e_x\approx e_x+(-\beta, \beta^2/2, 0, 0)^t $$ The $\approx$ symbol means that I have simply dropped lower order terms in the Taylor expansion in $\beta$ about $\beta = 0$. The point is translated backward in time and forward in $x$. Now what happens when we apply the transformations in the other order and then expand the result? $$ \Lambda_y(\beta)\Lambda_x(\beta)e_x\approx e_x+(-\beta, \beta^2/2, \beta^2, 0)^t $$ The same thing happens to the time and $x$ components as in the first order, but now the point is also shifted forward in $y$ a bit. When we subtract these two, we therefore get $$ \Big(\Lambda_x(\beta)\Lambda_y(\beta)-\Lambda_y(\beta)\Lambda_x(\beta)\Big)e_x \approx (0,0,-\beta^2,0)^t $$ Does this agree with what a rotation in $z$ would do? Well a rotation in $z$ by an angle $\phi$ looks like this: $$ R_z(\phi)=\left( \begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \cos \phi & \sin \phi & 0 \\ 0 & -\sin \phi & \cos \phi & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ \end{array} \right) $$ If you Taylor expand this about $\phi=0$, you'll get $$ R_z(\phi) \approx I + \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \phi & 0 \\ 0 & -\phi & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \end{array} \right) $$ So a rotation in $z$ acts on the point $e_x$ to give $$ R_z(\phi) e_x \approx e_x + (0,0,-\phi,0)^t $$ In other words, it subtracts a bit from the $y$-coordinate. But this subtraction is precisely what happened in the case of of the two boosts acting in different orders once we identify $\phi =\beta^2$!

What I drew when I was doing that math.

I know that this was all rather mathematical, but I can't see a way of getting around doing some math so as to be able to draw what happens to a point you choose under a given small boost or rotation.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much. I can clearly see it works. The thing is I was associating a boost too much with a simple momentum addition in a direction, and had completely forgotten to factor in how the boost also acts on time. $\endgroup$ – Mathusalem Jun 19 '13 at 21:23
  • $\begingroup$ @Mathusalem Sure thing. $\endgroup$ – joshphysics Jun 19 '13 at 21:39

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.