Integrating infinitesimal conformal transformations

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on integrating infinitesimal conformal transformations to derive their finite versions. The infinitesimal transformation is easily derived, but the challenge lies in integrating it due to its nonlinear nature. A suggested approach involves changing variables to linearize the transformation, utilizing the conformal group's generators, including Lorentz transformations, translations, and inversions. The transformation in question is identified as a transversion, which can be expressed in terms of these generators to facilitate integration. The conversation highlights the importance of variable changes in simplifying complex transformations for integration.
Rocky Raccoon
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
While it's pretty easy to derive the infinitesimal version of the special conformal transformation of the coordinates:

x'^{\mu}=x^{\mu}+c_{\nu}(x^{\mu} x^{\nu}-g^{\mu \nu} x^2)

with c infinitesimal,

how does one integrate it to obtain the finite version transformation:

x'^{\mu}=\frac{x^{\mu}-x^2 c^{\mu}}{1-2 x^{\nu} c_{\nu} + x^2 c^2}

with c finite?


I've never delt with nonlinear transformations that don't exponentiate trivially. Also, how does one integrate over a parameter that is Lorentz contracted with another vector?

Thanks for your help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
(First of all, I think you're missing a 2, it should be (2xμxν - gμνx2)).

In general, the way to exponentiate a transformation that acts nonlinearly is to find a different set of variables on which it is linear. In the present case, the conformal group can be generated by a) Lorentz transformations Λ, b) translations T, and c) inversion R. The inversion is R: xμ → xμ/xνxν. The transformation you're looking at is called a transversion, and can be written in terms of the generators as V = RTR-1. This gives you a clue that what you need to do to linearize V is to look at its effect on the inverted position vector, yμ ≡ xμ/xνxν. The action on yμ will be linear and easily exponentiated, and then you can go back and express the result in terms of x.
 
Yes, you're absolutely right, I'm missing a factor of 2.

So, you're saying that a simple change in variables will do the trick. I'll certainly try to do it that way. But, I was more thinking along the lines of solving the equation: dx^{\mu}=dc_{\nu}(2x^{\mu} x^{\nu} - g^{\mu \nu} x^2)? Can it be integrated?
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K