Use coordinates and Minkowski metric . A real matrix is a Lorentz transformation precisely when it preserves the Minkowski interval for every , equivalently
It is proper when , and orthochronous when , equivalently . The latter selects the orthochronous Lorentz group, which preserves future-directed timelike four-vectors. Indeed the time-time entry of the preservation identity gives , so . Imposing both conditions gives a proper orthochronous Lorentz transformation.
Now use and . Write
Preservation of the Minkowski metric says that the first column has squared norm , the second has squared norm , and the columns are orthogonal for the Minkowski inner product:
Orthochronousness gives . From the orthogonality equation, ; substituting in the second norm identity gives . Hence with . The determinant is then , so properness forces . Thus and .
Set . The first norm identity implies and . With , this gives
Conversely, the displayed matrix has , equal off-diagonal entries, determinant one, and positive time-time entry. Direct multiplication therefore gives , proving both directions. The plus signs are the Lorentz boost convention used in the paper; reversing the boost direction replaces by .
The signed rapidity corresponding to velocity is
Equivalently , , and . Thus the Lorentz boost from part (i) becomes
Multiplying two such matrices gives diagonal entries and off-diagonal entries , by the addition identities for hyperbolic functions. Hence
The resulting rapidity is . In velocity variables this is the relativistic velocity-addition formula .
For , each adjacent pair of walkways has relative rapidity . There are such steps between and , so the equal-rapidity chain of collinear Lorentz boosts has total rapidity . Thus the actual velocity is
It is strictly below the speed of light for every finite . Adding the adjacent velocities as ordinary numbers ignores the relativistic velocity-addition formula.
For large , the Taylor series of the inverse hyperbolic tangent gives
Consequently
More precisely, , so the limit is approached from above. The case would prescribe an adjacent relative velocity equal to the speed of light; it does not define an admissible walkway inertial frame.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.