Decomposition of SU(2)-invariant spin network state in 3 dimensions

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the decomposition of a SU(2)-invariant spin network state ##\psi## in the context of Rovelli and Vidotto's Covariant Loop Quantum Gravity. The state is defined over a graph with ##L## edges and ##N## trivalent vertices, utilizing Peter-Weyl's theorem to achieve the decomposition. The confusion arises from Equation (5.32), where indices ##n_1,\dots,n_L## are not summed over, leading to questions about potential typos and the proper introduction of ##3j##-symbols for gauge invariance. The participants seek clarity on how these indices are contracted within the framework of the theory.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of SU(2) group theory and its representations
  • Familiarity with Peter-Weyl's theorem
  • Knowledge of spin networks and their properties in quantum gravity
  • Basic grasp of Wigner matrices and 3j-symbols
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of gauge invariance in quantum gravity theories
  • Explore the mathematical foundations of Peter-Weyl's theorem in representation theory
  • Investigate the role of 3j-symbols in quantum mechanics and their applications
  • Review the construction and properties of spin networks in Loop Quantum Gravity
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, mathematicians specializing in quantum gravity, and researchers interested in the mathematical structures underlying SU(2) representations and spin networks.

Bertin
Messages
12
Reaction score
6
Below follows the passage of Rovelli and Vidotto's Covariant Loop Quantum Gravity that I do not understand. To give the context, let me clarify that a state ##\psi## is a function in ##L^2[\text{SU}(2)^L]##, defined over a graph with ##L## edges (called ''links'' in this context) dressed with ##\text{SU}(2)## elements — that is, to each link ##l## we associate an ##\text{SU}(2)## element ##U_l## — and with ##N## trivalent vertices (called ''nodes'' in this context).

The point of this passage is to employ Peter-Weyl's theorem to decompose such a state ##\psi##, knowing that additionaly it is invariant under the action of ##\text{SU}(2)## at any of its nodes, that is, under the simultaneous action of an element of ##\text{SU}(2)## on all the ##\{U_l\}## corresponding to all edges ##\{l\}## meeting at any arbitrary node. This latter action encodes the gauge invariance of the theory.

KFrZ3RGy.png

My question is quite simple. Equation (5.29) gives the decomposition of ##\psi## and — as it should be the case — every index ##j,m,n## is summed over. However, following their introduction of the ##3j##-symbols due to the aforementioned gauge invariance, the authors end up with (5.32), where the indices ##n_1,\dots,n_L## are not summed over, at least not according to the mathematical expression. Is this a typo?

I considered the possibility that, since the action of ##\text{SU}(2)## should affect both indices ##m,n## of a Wigner matrix component ##D^j_{mn}(U)##, and given that the state should remain invariant under this action whenever it affects all the matrices associated to the edges meeting at a given node, then we should introduce two ##3j##-symbols per vertex (one for each index in a pair ##m,n##), leading instead to the decomposition

$$
\psi(U_1, \dots ,U_L) =
C_{j_1,...,j_L}\iota_1^{m_1m_2m_3}\iota_1^{n_1n_2n_3}
\cdots \iota_N^{m_{L-2}m_{L-1}m_{L}}\iota_N^{n_{L-2}n_{L-1}n_{L}}
D^{j_1}_{m_1n_1}(U_1) \cdots D^{j_{L}}_{m_Ln_L}(U_{L}),
$$

where repeated indices are summed over. Nevertheless, the last paragraph in this excerpt explicitly states that there is one ##3j##-symbol for each node. Consequently, my question: how exactly are the (apparently) free indices in (5.32) contracted?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
Replies
26
Views
9K
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K