Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

This is a result physics books tell all the time, that the branch of proper Lorentz transformations with positive first entry forms the identity component of Lorentz group.

In mathematical language, for all $\Lambda\in\mathrm{SO}(1,3)$ and $(\Lambda)_{00} \geq 0$ (indices: 0,1,2,3), we have $\Lambda\in\mathrm{SO}^{+}(1,3)$. The converse is also true. But why? $(\Lambda)_{00} \geq 0$ is a very weak condition, and I have tried for hours but cannot even prove such $\Lambda$'s is closed under multiplication. Could anyone give me a hint?

In addition, is this result generalizable to arbitrary $\mathrm{SO}(1,n)$?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 5 down vote accepted

It is perhaps easiest to think in terms of frames.

Let $\{e_0, e_1, \ldots, e_n\}$ be a basis (we treat them as explicit column vectors in the standard coordinates of the vector space) of $\mathbb{R}^{1+n}$ such that under the Minkowski metric you have $$ m(e_0, e_0) = -1\qquad m(e_i,e_j) = \delta_{ij}, i,j \geq 1, \qquad m(e_0,e_j) = 0$$ (so that it forms an orthonormal basis of the Minkowski metric). You have that the matrix $$ \Lambda = \begin{pmatrix} e_0 & e_1 &\ldots & e_n\end{pmatrix}$$ formed with columns the basis vectors is an element of $O(1,n)$. Similarly, from the definition of $O(1,n)$ (that is preserves the Minkowski metric) you see that every element must be of the form above: that its individual column vectors form an orthonormal basis of Minkowski space.

Since the determinant is a continuous function, we have that the subsets of $O(1,n)$ for which $\det$ are $\pm1$ must be disconnected. Define $SO(1,n)$ to be the component with the positive determinant.

Now, since $m(e_0,e_0) = -1$, we expand $$ m(e_0,e_0) = - \left[(e_0)_0\right]^2 + \sum_{i = 1}^n \left[(e_0)_i\right]^2 \geq - \left[(e_0)_0\right]^2 $$ where $(e_0)_\mu$ are the components of the column vector $e_0$. This implies that $\left[(e_0)_0\right]^2 = (\Lambda_{00})^2 \geq 1$. Hence $\Lambda_{00}$ is either greater or equal to positive 1, or less than or equal to negative 1. Since for a connected component, $\Lambda_{00}$ is a continuous function, we must have that the sets $O(1,n) \cap \{\Lambda_{00} > 0\}$ and $O(1,3)\cap \{\Lambda_{00} < 0\}$ are disconnected. We call the component where $\Lambda_{00} > 0$ by $O^+(1,3)$.

We claim that $O^+(1,n)$ forms a subgroup. We argue geometrically. Let $\Lambda$ be as above.

Claim 1. Let $u,v,w\in \mathbb{R}^{1+n}$ be such that $m(u,u), m(v,v), m(w,w)$ are all negative (so they are all time-like). Then $m(u,v)\cdot m(v,w)$ and $m(u,w)$ have the opposite signs.

Proof: complete $v$ to an orthonormal basis $\{v_0 = v, v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_n\}$. We have that $u = - m(v,u) v_0 + \sum m(v_i,u) v_i$ and similarly $w$. The claim follows immediately.

Claim 2. If $v,w$ are time-like vectors such that $v-w$ is space-like. Then $m(v,w) < 0$.

Proof: Observe that $$ m(v,w) + m(v, v-w) + m(w,v) + m(w,w-v) = m(v,v) + m(w,w) < 0 $$ and that the left hand side rearranges to $$ 2 m(v,w) + m(v-w,v-w) \geq 2 m(v-w) $$

Claim 3. If $\Lambda \in O^+(1,n)$, and $v$ is a time-like vector such that the $0$ component of $v$ is positive, then so is $\Lambda\cdot v$. (That is, $\Lambda$ preserves time orientation.)

Proof: Let $s_0$ be the column vector $(1,0,0\ldots)$. By assumption on the $0$ component, we have $m(s_0,v) < 0$. By the isometry property, $\Lambda\cdot v$ is time-like. By definition, $\Lambda \cdot v - |m(s_0,v)| e_0$ is space-like. $e_0$ is time-like. By Claim 2 we have that $m(e_0, \Lambda\cdot v) < 0$. By assumption we have $m(e_0,s_0) < 0$. So by Claim 1 we must also have $m(\Lambda \cdot v, s_0) < 0$, as desired.

Claim 4. $O^+(1,n)$ is a subgroup.

Proof: the identity clearly belongs to it. It suffices to show that matrix multiplication is closed. Let $\Lambda,\Lambda'$ be elements of $O^+(1,n)$. The $00$ component of the product $\Lambda\Lambda'$ is obtained by $s_0^T\Lambda\Lambda' s_0$. That is to say, for $\Lambda\Lambda'$ to have positive $00$ component it suffices that $m(\Lambda\Lambda's_0,s_0) < 0$. But this follows from Claim 3.

The above implies that $O^+(1,n)$ and $SO(1,n)$ are subgroups of $O(1,n)$. Hence their intersection $SO^+(1,n) = O^+(1,n) \cap SO(1,n)$ is a subgroup of $O(1,n)$. Furthermore, by definition, the connected component of the identity of $O(1,n)$ entirely contained in $SO^+(1,n)$. Thus it remains to show that $SO^+(1,n)$ is (path) connected. One can in principle show this by considering the exponential map applied to the corresponding Lie algebra, but a more intuitive way is as follows:

using the above characterisation of $\Lambda$ as a frame, it suffices to find a continuous family of frames connecting the standard basis $\{s_0, s_1, \ldots, s_n\}$ to the basis $\{e_0, e_1, \ldots, e_n\}$. A path can be sketched as follows: first to an $SO(n)$ rotation on $\{e_0, \ldots, e_n\}$ such that $e_0$ is in the span of $\{s_0, s_1\}$. This is path connected. Then a hyperbolic translation (Lorentz boost) can bring $e_0$ back to $s_0$; this step requires that $\Lambda\in O^+(1,3)$. Now finish with another $SO(n)$ rotation aligning the remainder of the axes. This uses the fact that $SO(n)$ is connected, and that $\Lambda\in SO^+(1,3)$, so that once $e_0$ is "brought back" to $s_0$, the remainder of the axis are of the same orientation as $\{s_1, \ldots, s_n\}$.

share|cite|improve this answer

The action of $SO(1,3)$ leaves invariant the quadratic form $t^2-x^2-y^2-z^2$. It is easily seen that the orbits of $SO(1,3)$ are precisely the sets of vectors $(t,x,y,z)$ for which this form takes a fixed value $q\in\mathbf R$. If $q=0$ this is a cone, otherwise it is a hyperboloid. But there is a qualitative difference between the case $q<0$, where the hyperboloid is connected, and the case $q>0$ where the hyperboloid has $2$ connected components, one on each side of the hyperplane defined by $t=0$. Since the action of $SO(1,3)$ is continuous, it follows that $SO(1,3)$ can be separated into two open subsets according to whether it sends a particular vector $v_0=(1,0,0,0)$ (where the form is positive) to a vector in one or the other of the connected components of its orbit, i.e., a vector with $t>0$ or with $t<0$ (in fact with $t\geq 1$ or with $t\leq-1$). Since the stabilizer subgroup of $v_0$ is isomorphic to $SO(3)$, and therefore connected, it follows that these two open subsets of $SO(1,3)$ are in fact the connected components of $SO(1,3)$.

And as a consequence there is nothing special about the choice of $v_0$: doing the same for any other vector where the quadratic form is positive (and whose orbit therefore has two components) would lead to the same separation of $SO(1,3)$ into two parts.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.