There're two questions:(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

(1)In page 64, he says

[itex]L^{-1}({\Lambda}p){\Lambda}L(p)[/itex]...(2.5.10) ((L(p) is defined in (2.5.4))

belongs to the subgroup(of lorentz group) that leaves the standard momentum k invariant, i.e. [itex]W^{\mu}_{\;\nu}k^{\nu}=k^{\mu}[/itex]...(2.57), and this subgroup is called the little group.

My question is about the converse of the statement: can all little group elements be written as (2.5.10)?In other words, can we use (2.5.10) as an alternative definition of little group?If no, what are the exceptions?If yes, how do I prove it?

(2)Suppose little group can be defined by (2.5.10), does the matrix of [itex]W(\Lambda,p)[/itex]depend on the particular choice of the "standard boost“ of L(p)?

Take an example from page 68, the standard boost given in (2.5.24) (which is a pure boost without rotation), can be written as [itex]L(p)=R(\hat {\mathbf{p}})B(|\mathbf{p}|)R^{-1}(\hat {\mathbf{p}})[/itex], but I find we may just as well define L(p) to be [itex]L(p)=R(\hat {\mathbf{p}})B(|\mathbf{p}|)[/itex] and still we'll get the same p from the standard momentum k, but would W still be the same if I choose L(p) to be the latter way(and this L(p) is later used for mass 0 particles, see (2.5.44))? I checked for pure rotation these two L(p) indeed give the same W, but I don't know how to prove it for a general [itex]\Lambda[/itex]

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Confusion (2) from Weinberg's QFT.(Little group))

Loading...

Similar Threads for Confusion Weinberg's Little |
---|

A Confusion about the Z factor(Renormalization factor) |

I Spin confusion: Stern-Gerlach experiment |

I Confused about Dirac Notation |

B Two Confusing Entanglement Scenarios |

I Probability vs radial density-confusion |

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**