Central charge and Lorentz Algebra

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the verification of a commutation relation involving the generators of the Lorentz group and their action on fields, specifically focusing on the concept of a central charge. Participants explore the relationships between various equations and the implications of the Lorentz algebra in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the commutation relations for the Lorentz generators and proposes a method to verify a specific equation related to these generators and their action on fields.
  • Another participant suggests the use of Jacobi identities to establish consistency between the Lie algebra and the action of its generators on fields, introducing a general framework applicable to arbitrary Lie groups.
  • There is a query about the correspondence between the presented equations and the participant's own equations, particularly regarding the indices and the nature of the fields involved.
  • Further clarification is sought on how the equations presented by one participant relate to the original problem being addressed, particularly in terms of the structure of the Lorentz algebra.
  • One participant emphasizes the need to apply the algebraic relations to connect the various expressions involving the fields and generators.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and interpretation of the equations and concepts discussed. There is no consensus on the best approach to verify the original equation, and multiple interpretations of the relationships between the equations exist.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential confusion regarding the indices of the fields and the specific forms of the equations, indicating that assumptions about the nature of the fields and the generators may not be fully aligned.

LAHLH
Messages
405
Reaction score
2
Hi,

If [tex]M^{\mu\nu}[/tex] are the generators of the Lorentz group, i.e. they obey
[tex][M^{\mu\nu}, M^{\rho\sigma}]=i\hbar(g^{\mu\rho}M^{\nu\sigma}-g^{\nu\rho}M^{\mu\sigma})+...(1)[/tex]

and [tex]L^{\mu\nu}[/tex] is defined by, [tex]L^{\mu\nu} := \frac{\hbar}{i} (x^{\mu} \partial^{\nu}-x^{\nu} \partial^{\mu})[/tex]

I have found that L also obeys a similar commutation relation to the generators, namely:
[tex][L^{\mu\nu}, L^{\rho\sigma}]\phi=i\hbar(g^{\mu\rho}L^{\nu\sigma}-g^{\nu\rho}L^{\mu\sigma})+...(2)[/tex]

I also know that [tex][\phi(x),[M^{\mu\nu}, M^{\rho\sigma}]]=[L^{\mu\nu}, L^{\rho\sigma}]\phi(x) (3)[/tex]

I am now trying to solve a problem that asks to verify equation (1) upto a term on the RHS that commutes with [tex]\phi(x)[/tex] and its derivatives, by using equations 2 and 3. I have already proved equation 1 by other means, but no idea how to go about it this way. Apparently the term that might arise on RHS is called the central charge.

Just plugging things in takes me to:

[tex]\phi(x)[M^{\mu\nu}, M^{\rho\sigma}]-[M^{\mu\nu}, M^{\rho\sigma}]\phi(x)=i\hbar(g^{\mu\rho}L^{\nu\sigma}-g^{\nu\rho}L^{\mu\sigma})+...[/tex]

I'm not sure where one would go from here to verify the generator equation, equation (1).

Thanks for any suggestions
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I see a bit of mess in what you trying to do. You need to know the action of the generators on the fields, i.e., the infinitesimal transformation law for the field. Basically, we use Jacobi identities to show the consistency (up to a set of c-numbers) between the Lie algebra and the action of its generators on the fields. Let me explain this for arbitrary Lie group G whose infinitesimal generators [itex]G_{a}[/itex] have the following action on some arbitrary set of fields [itex]\phi_{i}[/itex];

[tex] \delta \phi_{i} = [iG_{a},\phi_{i}] = (T_{a})^{j}_{i}\phi_{j} \ \ \ \ (1)[/tex]

where [itex]T_{a}[/itex] are a set of operators or/and matrices satisfying the Lie algebra of our group, i.e.,

[tex][T_{a},T_{b}] = if_{abc}T_{c} \ \ \ (2)[/tex]

Now, use eq(1) to evaluate the following Jacobi identity

[tex] [iG_{b},[iG_a,\phi_{i}]] + [\phi_{i},[iG_{b},iG_{a}]] + [iG_{a},[\phi_{i},iG_{b}]] = 0[/tex]

Doing that, you find

[tex] [[G_{a},G_{b}], \phi_{i}] = \left( T_{a}T_{b}-T_{b}T_{a}\right)^{k}{}_{i}\phi_{k}[/tex]

Then from eq(2), you get

[tex] [[G_{a},G_{b}],\phi_{i}] = i f_{abc}(T_{c})^{k}{}_{i}\phi_{k}[/tex]

then from eq(1) you find

[tex] [[G_{a},G_{b}],\phi_{i}] = if_{abc}[iG_{c},\phi_{i}][/tex]

This equation has the following general solution;

[tex] [G_{a},G_{b}] = -f_{abc}G_{c} + C_{ab}[/tex]

with [itex]C_{ab}[/itex] are antisymmetric c-numbers, i.e., they commute with all fields.
Now I leave you to do the same thing with Lorentz group.


regards

sam
 
Thanks for the reply, I greatly appreciate it.

Not sure I fully understand how to solve my problem yet.

[tex] <br /> \delta \phi_{i} = [iG_{a},\phi_{i}] = (T_{a})^{j}_{i}\phi_{j} \ \ \ \ (1)<br /> [/tex]

Does this correspond to my equation:

[tex] [\phi(x),M^{\mu\nu}]=L^{\mu\nu} \phi(x)[/tex]

With your label 'a' being my [tex]\mu\nu[/tex] giving 6 independent labels for my 4-d antisymmetric matrix (so your 'a' goes from 1-6?). I'm not sure why your [tex]\phi(x)[/tex] have indices on them, since they are scalar?

Then assuming my correpondance is correct above, your equation:

[tex] [T_{a},T_{b}] = if_{abc}T_{c} \ \ \ (2)[/tex]

would correspond also to my equation (2):

[tex] [L^{\mu\nu}, L^{\rho\sigma}]=i\hbar(g^{\mu\rho}L^{\nu\sigma}-g^{\nu\rho}L^{\mu\sigma})+...(2)[/tex]
 
I also had

[tex] [\phi(x),[M^{\mu\nu}, M^{\rho\sigma}]]=[L^{\mu\nu}, L^{\rho\sigma}]\phi(x) (3) [/tex]

which I guess somehow links to your:

[tex] <br /> [[G_{a},G_{b}], \phi_{i}] = \left( T_{a}T_{b}-T_{b}T_{a}\right)^{k}{}_{i}\phi_{k}<br /> [/tex]
 
[tex] [\phi(x),[M^{\mu\nu}, M^{\rho\sigma}]]=[L^{\mu\nu}, L^{\rho\sigma}]\phi(x) (3) [/tex]


Yes, use the algebra [L,L] = gL + ..., then for each L[itex]\phi[/itex] put the corresponding [[itex]\phi[/itex], M] .


sam
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K