You are Here: Home >< Maths

# Show d^4k is Lorentz Invariant Watch

Announcements
1. Show that is Lorentz Invariant

2. Relevant equations

Under a lorentz transformation the vector transforms as

where satisfies

,

(2) the Minkowski metric, invariant.

3. The attempt at a solution

I think my main issue lies in what is and writing this in terms of

Once I am able to write in index notation I might be ok.

For example to show is invariant is pretty simple given the above identities and my initial step would be to write it as in order to make use (2).

I believe ?

For example, more generally, given a vector I don't know how I would express as some sort of index expression of (and probably I'm guessing the Minkowski metric?).

I would like to do this for , if this is the first step required ?and how do I go about it? Many thanks in advance.

(No time dilation, length contraction argument please, I need to make use of what is given in the question - thank you).
2. (Original post by xfootiecrazeesarax)
Show that is Lorentz Invariant
I'm not sure what you mean by - is this working in momentum space or something?

Anyway, I've seen this done for the usual 4-volume element by Jacobians. You have under a Lorentz transformation:

where is the determinant of the Jacobian of the Lorentz matrix. So if you can show that this is 1, then the volume elements are the same in both coord systems and I don't think that is too tricky, though I'm not sure I've ever done it myself.
3. (Original post by atsruser)
I'm not sure what you mean by - is this working in momentum space or something?

Anyway, I've seen this done for the usual 4-volume element by Jacobians. You have under a Lorentz transformation:

where is the determinant of the Jacobian of the Lorentz matrix. So if you can show that this is 1, then the volume elements are the same in both coord systems and I don't think that is too tricky, though I'm not sure I've ever done it myself.
I want to make use of these though

Under a lorentz transformation the vector transforms as

where satisfies

,

I believe they do the same as the Jacobian so I will eventually reduce to that stage probably , I suspect via an expression including the Minkowski metrics, perhaps a delta arising, however so I am still stuck on an initial index expression for to get me started.
4. 1+1=3

5. (Original post by xfootiecrazeesarax)
I want to make use of these though

Under a lorentz transformation the vector transforms as
What is ? The relativistic wave vector? i.e. are you working with ?

In that case, then I guess that

I also have no idea what your symbols are. Can you please explain this stuff clearly. You are leaving too many details out. I can't read your mind and I have no idea what you have been working on.
6. (Original post by xfootiecrazeesarax)
I want to make use of these though

Under a lorentz transformation the vector transforms as

where satisfies

,

I believe they do the same as the Jacobian so I will eventually reduce to that stage probably , I suspect via an expression including the Minkowski metrics, perhaps a delta arising, however so I am still stuck on an initial index expression for to get me started.
I suggest you try posting on https://www.physicsforums.com/ You may get a lot more replies.
7. (Original post by EternalLight)
I suggest you try posting on https://www.physicsforums.com/ You may get a lot more replies.
done haha
and no such luck
8. (Original post by xfootiecrazeesarax)
I want to make use of these though

Under a lorentz transformation the vector transforms as

where satisfies

,

I believe they do the same as the Jacobian so I will eventually reduce to that stage probably , I suspect via an expression including the Minkowski metrics, perhaps a delta arising, however so I am still stuck on an initial index expression for to get me started.
For each , define the 4-vectors (where, in case it isn't obvious, the summation convention does not apply over ). Then note:

Which is clearly invariant, as the object on the RHS is obviously a scalar (given that there are no free indices). If you really want to prove it using the language of tensors, you need only know how the 4-dimensional Levi-Civita symbol transforms.

That all said, as atsruser points out, the standard and most direct way to prove invariance here is to show that the Jacobian of the transformation is 1.
9. (Original post by atsruser)
What is ? The relativistic wave vector? i.e. are you working with ?

In that case, then I guess that
It is invariant for all (reasonably defined) 4-vectors .

I also have no idea what your symbols are. Can you please explain this stuff clearly. You are leaving too many details out. I can't read your mind and I have no idea what you have been working on.
I'd have though is fairly standard notation for Minkowski metric, which defines the class of Lorentz transformations. As a 4x4 matrix, .

Wouldn't have hurt if the OP pointed this out, however!
10. (Original post by Farhan.Hanif93)
It is invariant for all (reasonably defined) 4-vectors .
Yes. However, the OP seemed to be asking for an explicit form for , and I just wanted to be sure what she was dealing with.

And I'm intrigued by your "reasonably defined" caveat - are there some 4-vectors where the argument doesn't work? I can't see how.

I'd have though is fairly standard notation for Minkowski metric, which defines the class of Lorentz transformations. As a 4x4 matrix, .
I had forgotten this, and had to look it up, but yes, you're right.

Given the information that the OP supplied in her first post, I was wondering if they were expecting some kind of explicit matrix manipulation argument based on the eta identity. I've forgotten too much of this stuff to see if it can be done that way, though.
11. (Original post by atsruser)
Yes. However, the OP seemed to be asking for an explicit form for , and I just wanted to be sure what she was dealing with.
Perfectly fair enough.

And I'm intrigued by your "reasonably defined" caveat - are there some 4-vectors where the argument doesn't work? I can't see how.
It was a little unclear - by that, I meant 4-vectors for which we can define the differential element as something sensible. It was more a comment to cover my back in case I had missed a case. For almost all 4-vectors, it should be fine.

Given the information that the OP supplied in her first post, I was wondering if they were expecting some kind of explicit matrix manipulation argument based on the eta identity. I've forgotten too much of this stuff to see if it can be done that way, though.
Yes, that is indeed what they seem to be after. (Although, it would help if the OP verified this).

In particular, from my post above, OP wants to show that:

where:

A slightly tedious argument which explicitly requires use of the relationship between the Minkowski metric and Lorentz transformations.
12. (Original post by Farhan.Hanif93)
It was a little unclear - by that, I meant 4-vectors for which we can define the differential element as something sensible. It was more a comment to cover my back in case I had missed a case. For almost all 4-vectors, it should be fine.
By sensible, you mean physically meaningful, or useful? I guess there must be 4-vectors where the concept of an associated 4-volume isn't very productive.

As for the rest, your mad index skilz are over my head at the moment. I'm too rusty to decode it.

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: May 28, 2017
Today on TSR

### Oxbridge

Even more elitist than everyone thought?

### Physically ill after being cheated on

Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## See more of what you like on The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

• Poll
Useful resources

## Make your revision easier

### Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

### How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

### Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## See more of what you like on The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

• The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.