Broken Symmetries (Weinberg p215)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Final
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Broken Symmetries
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
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...

Similar threads

Back
Top