Monday, 24 October 2016

reference frames - A few questions on passive vs active Lorentz transformations


1.) How do we physically interpret an active Lorentz transformation? The passive transformation seems simple enough: you view a fixed object from the perspective of a new observer. When we actively Lorentz transform a vector are we interpreting this as moving the vector to a new point in spacetime considered from the perspective of a single observer?


2.) I am reading David Tong's QFT notes, and am having a hard time interpreting what he means by active transformations. The notes in question can be found here: http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft/qft.pdf The notes in question are on pg 11-12 as labeled by the book or pages 17-18 as labeled by the PDF.



In his notes, Tong states that we can transform a scalar field as follows:


$$\phi (x) \rightarrow \phi'(x) = \phi \left(\Lambda^{-1} x \right).$$


When he does this, I'm interpreting this as


$$\phi (x) \rightarrow \phi'(x') = \phi \left(\Lambda^{-1} x' \right),$$


where $x'=\Lambda x$. From what I understand, the advantage of using the inverse Lorentz transformation on the primed system is that we can use the same functional form of $\phi$. However, when moving to the primed system we have still used $\Lambda$, not its inverse. Can anyone tell me if I'm correct in my understanding up to this point?


If my understanding is correct up to this point then I really don't understand the next section in his notes. He states that under this transformation derivatives transform as


$$(\partial_\mu \phi) \rightarrow \left( \Lambda^{-1} \right)^\nu_{\phantom{\nu} \mu} (\partial_\nu \phi)(y),$$


where $y=\Lambda^{-1}x$ (where this $x$ is primed, right?). But we've still gone from $x \rightarrow x'$ where $x'=\Lambda x$ (again based on my understanding which may be terribly wrong). Using $\Lambda^{-1}x'$ was simply a mathematical trick to allow us to use the same functional form of $\phi$. If that's the case, why are the derivatives transforming as $\Lambda^{-1}$ instead of just $\Lambda$?


I'm sorry -- I know this is a little convoluted, but I'm having a really hard time getting my head around this, especially with his notation. I really wish he would have used primes or something...


Am I completely lost? Someone please rescue me.





No comments:

Post a Comment

Understanding Stagnation point in pitot fluid

What is stagnation point in fluid mechanics. At the open end of the pitot tube the velocity of the fluid becomes zero.But that should result...