A Explicit construction of Galilean-invariant space

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on finding a projective unitary scalar representation of the Galilean group, denoted by the elements (a, b, R, v) for time translation, space translation, rotation, and boosts. Two candidate representations are proposed, one involving square integrable functions on momentum space with a specific action, and another based on an inverse transformation. The challenge lies in reconciling the phase factors with the commutation relations of the boost and space translation generators, particularly regarding the factor of 1/2 that arises in compositions of translations and boosts. The participants reference classical papers by Lévy-Leblond to support their exploration of this topic. The discussion ultimately seeks clarity on the appropriate choice of phase factor for these representations.
Adgorn
Messages
133
Reaction score
19
I'm trying to explicitly find a projective unitary scalar representation of the Galilean group. I'll denote a generic element of the group by ##(a, {\bf b},R, {\bf v})##, corresponding respectively to time translation, space translation, rotation and boosts. In a representation with central charge ##M##, the commutation relations of the boost and space translation genrations are:

$$\tag{1} [K_i,P_j]=-iM\delta_{ij}.$$

The candidate I'm considering is the most obvious one. Take the space of square integrable functions on ##\mathbb R^3## (momentum space) and give it the action:

$$\tag {2}(a, {\bf b},R, {\bf v})\phi({\bf p})=e^{i[-a(\frac {p^2} {2M}+E_0)+{\bf b}\cdot{\bf p}]}\phi(R{\bf p}+M{\bf v}).$$

Another candidate which I saw in a paper was the inverse transformation:

$$\tag {3}(a, {\bf b},R, {\bf v})\phi({\bf p})=e^{i(aE-{\bf b}\cdot{\bf p})}\phi(R^{-1}({\bf p}-M{\bf v})).$$

At any rate, I'm having a hard time reconciling any option for the phase with ##(1)##. The Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula along with ##(1)## implies that for a composition of a translation and a boost:

$$e^{-i{\bf v} \cdot {\bf K}}e^{-i{\bf b} \cdot {\bf P}}=e^{iM\frac {{\bf v}\cdot {\bf b}} 2}e^{-i({\bf v} \cdot {\bf K}+{\bf b} \cdot {\bf P})}.$$

But if I actually compose these operations in either ##(2)##or ##(3)##, I don't get the ##\frac 1 2## factor. So are these really projective representations? If not, what choice of phase factor is appropriate?

The papers I'm refering to are:

1.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01646020

2.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01645427
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Adgorn said:
[...]

The papers I'm refering to are:

1.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01646020

2.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01645427

These are classical papers. I believe CMP was freely available on the NumDam server.

1. Lévy-Leblond, J.-M. (1967). Nonrelativistic particles and wave equations. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 6(4), 286–311. doi:10.1007/bf01646020

2. Lévy-Leblond, J.-M. (1967). Galilean quantum field theories and a ghostless Lee model. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 4(3), 157–176. doi:10.1007/bf01645427
 
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...