A simple equality of Generalized Lorentz Operators

In summary, the conversation discusses Lorentz and generalized rotation operators and their corresponding algebras. The conversation also presents an attempt at solving a problem involving the SU(2) algebra, which ultimately results in an incorrect answer due to a missing factor of 1/2. The conversation ends with a correction being provided.
  • #1
tamiry
10
0

Homework Statement


Hi

we have Lorentz operators
[itex]J^{\mu\nu} = i(x^{\mu}\partial^{\nu} - x^{\nu}\partial^{\mu})[/itex]

and these have
[itex][J^{\mu\nu}, J^{\rho\sigma}] = i(\eta^{\nu\rho}J^{\mu\sigma} + \eta^{\mu\sigma}J^{\nu\rho} - \eta^{\mu\rho}J^{\nu\sigma} - \eta^{\nu\sigma}J^{\mu\rho})[/itex]

Now define generalized rotation operators, for i, j, k space coordinates
[itex]M^{i} = \epsilon_{ijk}J^{jk}[/itex]

Show that [itex]M^{i}[/itex] have the SU(2) algebra. i.e.
[itex][M^{i}, M^{j}] = i\epsilon_{ijk}M^{k}[/itex]

Homework Equations


(all is above)

The Attempt at a Solution


I've done a few attempts and failed. so I tried taking an example
[itex]M^{1}= \epsilon_{123}J^{23}+\epsilon_{132}J^{32} = J^{23} - J^{32}[/itex]
[itex]M^{2}= \dots = J^{31} - J^{13}[/itex]

and now
[itex][M^{1},M^{2}] = [J^{23}, J^{31}] - [J^{32}, J^{31}] + [J^{23}, J^{13}] - [J^{32}, J^{13}][/itex]

well [itex]J^{ij} = -J^{ji}[/itex] so the second term negates the first one ([itex]J^{32} for J^{23}[/itex]) and like wise the fourth and third term. So all in all I get zero. and that's no SU(2) :(

where did I go wrong?

thanks a lot for reading this
Tamir
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hello, tamiry.

tamiry said:
Now define generalized rotation operators, for i, j, k space coordinates
[itex]M^{i} = \epsilon_{ijk}J^{jk}[/itex]

Did you leave out a factor of 1/2 here?

[itex][M^{1},M^{2}] = [J^{23}, J^{31}] - [J^{32}, J^{31}] + [J^{23}, J^{13}] - [J^{32}, J^{13}][/itex]

[itex]J^{ij} = -J^{ji}[/itex] so the second term negates the first one ([itex]J^{32} for J^{23}[/itex]) and like wise the fourth and third term. So all in all I get zero.

Those terms don't cancel. Watch the signs carefully.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #3
but of course...
thanks!
 

FAQ: A simple equality of Generalized Lorentz Operators

What is the concept of "A simple equality of Generalized Lorentz Operators"?

"A simple equality of Generalized Lorentz Operators" refers to a mathematical relationship that describes the behavior of physical systems under the principles of Lorentz invariance. It states that the transformation of a physical quantity under a Lorentz transformation is equal to the transformation of its dual quantity under the inverse transformation.

What is the significance of this equality in physics?

The equality of Generalized Lorentz Operators is a fundamental concept in physics that allows us to understand the behavior of physical systems in different reference frames. It is a key aspect of special relativity and forms the basis for many important theories, such as Einstein's theory of general relativity.

Can you give an example of this equality in action?

One example of this equality is the transformation of electric and magnetic fields in the presence of moving charged particles. According to the principle of relativity, the laws of physics should be the same for all inertial observers. Using the equality of Generalized Lorentz Operators, we can show that electric and magnetic fields transform in a specific way that is consistent with this principle.

How does this equality relate to the Lorentz transformation?

The Lorentz transformation is a mathematical tool used to describe how physical quantities, such as time, length, and mass, change in different reference frames. The simple equality of Generalized Lorentz Operators is a key component of this transformation, as it allows us to understand how these quantities transform under different velocities.

Are there any limitations to this equality?

While the equality of Generalized Lorentz Operators is a powerful concept in understanding the behavior of physical systems, it does have some limitations. It is based on the assumption of Lorentz invariance, which may not hold in all physical scenarios. Additionally, it does not account for the effects of gravity, which require the use of more complex mathematical frameworks, such as general relativity.

Similar threads

Back
Top