Broken Symmetries (Weinberg p215)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Final
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Broken Symmetries
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical structure of groups and their subgroups, specifically focusing on expressing elements of a group G in terms of its generators and the implications of broken symmetries. The context includes theoretical exploration of group theory and its applications in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how any finite element of group G can be expressed in the form g=exp[i\xi_ax_a]exp[i\theta_i t_i] despite the non-commutativity of the generators [t_i,x_a].
  • Another participant references the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula to suggest that the product of the two exponentials can be expressed as a single exponential with new parameters that are functions of the original parameters.
  • A repeated assertion emphasizes that by the definition of a group, the product of two group elements can always be expressed as another group element.
  • A participant expresses confusion about how to express a generic element of the group as a product of two specific forms, g_1 and g_2, highlighting a need for clarification on this point.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants appear to have differing levels of understanding regarding the expression of group elements and the implications of the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the method of expressing the group elements.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the properties of group elements and the implications of non-commutativity, which are not fully resolved. The complexity of the new parameters resulting from the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula is acknowledged but not elaborated upon.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in group theory, particularly in the context of physics and broken symmetries, may find this discussion relevant.

Final
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Hi...
A group G is proken to a subgroup H. Let t_{\alpha} the generator of G and
t_i the generator of H. The t_i form a subalgebra. Take the x_a to be the other indipendent generator of G.
Why any finite element of G may be expressed in the form g=exp[i\xi_ax_a]exp[i\theta_i t_i] even if [t_i,x_a]\neq0?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff_formula" says that
\exp[i\xi_a x_a]\exp[i\theta_i t_i] = \exp[i\tilde\xi_a x_a + i\tilde\theta_i t_i]
where the new parameters are complicated functions of the old ones.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Final said:
Hi...
A group G is proken to a subgroup H. Let t_{\alpha} the generator of G and
t_i the generator of H. The t_i form a subalgebra. Take the x_a to be the other indipendent generator of G.
Why any finite element of G may be expressed in the form g=exp[i\xi_ax_a]exp[i\theta_i t_i] even if [t_i,x_a]\neq0?

By definition of a group, you can always write the product of two group elements as a third group element. That's all there is to it.
 
nrqed said:
By definition of a group, you can always write the product of two group elements as a third group element. That's all there is to it.

I don't understand... My problem is to express a generic element of the group g=exp[i\xi_ax_a+i\theta_i t_i] as the product of 2 element of the form
g_1=exp[i\xi_ax_a] \ g_2=exp[i\theta_i t_i].

Thank you
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
10K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
16K