Aug 24, 2012

Why is the Lorentz transformation linear?


Today, in our General Relativity class, a student asked Dr. Anderson why Lorentz transformation must be linear. Dr. Anderson seemed unprepared for this question, and simply argued it does not have to, but proposed for simplicity. Especially, said him, linearity hold for infinitesimal transformation (first order). His answer isn't satisfactory to me.  

Lorentz transformation is defined for (between) inertial frames. (The coordinates transformation for general frames is the subject of general relativity.) The linearity of the Lorentz transformation comes from the property of the inertial frame and the equivalence principle (See for example: Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity). Newton's first law defines inertial reference frame,
"In an inertial frame, every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed." 
Therefore, if an object is not accelerating in one inertial frame, it musn't be accelerating in another. Now let's apply it to the Lorentz transformations.

Let K and K be two inertial frames, related by a constant velocity V. We denote the coordinates in the two frames as xμ,yμ. Let xμ=Xμ(t) and yμ=Yμ(t) be the trajectories of a particle  in K and K respectively. Note that t=x0=X0(t),t=y0=Y0(t), thus X0 and Y0 are unit identity functions. The velocities ddtXμ˙Xμ,ddtYμ˙Yμ. We note that all the derivatives are ultimately taken respect to t (or t). The relation between t and t: dtdt=˙Xμy0xμ. So,
[ equation 1 ] d2Yκdt2=y0xρ˙Xρ2yκxμxν˙Xμ˙Xν+y0xρ˙Xρyκxμ¨Xμyκxρ˙Xρ2y0xμxν˙Xμ˙Xνyκxρ˙Xρy0xμ¨Xμ(y0xλ˙Xλ)3

Suppose the particle has uniform velocity in frame K, ¨X=a=0,¨X0(t)=d2tdt2=0 (i.e. ¨Xμ=0). According to the property of the inertial frame, it has 0 acceleration in K, too, ¨Y=a=0,¨Y0(t)=d2tdt2=0 (i.e. ¨Yμ=0). Hence for all constant velocities ˙Xμ ( with subject to the constraint ˙X01  - yet does not affect the conclusion ),
[ equation 2 ] ¨Yκ=0(y0xρ2yκxμxνyκxρ2y0xμxν)˙Xμ˙Xν˙Xρ=0y0xρ2yκxμxν=yκxρ2y0xμxν.
Obviously, the expression holds trivially when κ=0.

Now, according to Special Relativity (SR), the coordinates in the new and old frame satisfy [ equation 3, the equivalence principle ] gμνdxμdxν=gμνdyμdyνgμνyμxρyνxσ=gρσ,gρσyμxρyνxσ=gμν
where gμν=gμν=diag{1,+1,+1,+1} is the metric tensor. By using this relation and equation 2, we get,
[ equation 4 ] gρσy0xσy0xρ2yκxμxν=gρσy0xσyκxρ2y0xμxν2yκxμxν=g0κ2y0xμxν
Now, g0κ=δ0κ. That means, if κ=1,2,3, then 2yκxμxν=0. Substitute this result back to equation 2, and take we can see  2y0xμxν=0. Therefore, we conclude
[ equation 5 ] 2yκxμxν=0,
namely the Lorentz transformation is linear with respect to coordinates xμ.

Due to the linearity, We can write the Lorentz transformation as yμ=Λμνxν+aμ,
where Λμν and aμ do no depend on the coordinates  xμ. Apparently, Λμν satisfy gμνΛμρΛνσ=gρσ. This constraint reduces the number of free parameters of Λμν from 4×4=16 to 6 (3 angles and 3 rapidities). These are also the solutions of equation 2 & equation 3. These solutions, as we know form a group, the Poincare group.


update:
edit the wording and notations.

supplement the derivation with d2tdt2 part (red texts). It was omitted in the previous derivation as d2tdt2=0 (or I forgot).

rederive the linearity from the equivalence principle

7 comments:

  1. Thanks!
    But what happened with the (d^2 t / dt'^2) - terms?
    I couldn't find out how to type formula here, so here's a screenshot
    http://www.psicolor.de/derivate.png

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  2. you forgot the dt/dt' term in your first red term.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If y = square(x1) + square (x2), it is non-linear

    but its second-order derivatives, y'' = zero.

    so, y''=0 does not imply linearity, right or wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In your example, 2yx1x1=141x310.

      Delete
  4. Why can't the transformation be in an exponential form? It is still linear.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why can't they of an exponential form which is still linear?

    ReplyDelete