Explicit construction of Galilean-invariant space

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the explicit construction of projective unitary scalar representations of the Galilean group, denoted by the elements ##(a, {\bf b},R, {\bf v})##. The user explores two candidate representations involving square integrable functions on ##\mathbb R^3##, specifically examining the actions defined in equations (2) and (3). The challenge lies in reconciling the phase factors with the commutation relations derived from the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula, particularly the factor of ##\frac{1}{2}## that arises in the composition of translations and boosts. The user seeks clarification on the appropriateness of the phase factor for these representations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Galilean group representations
  • Familiarity with quantum mechanics and wave functions
  • Knowledge of the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula
  • Experience with mathematical physics literature
NEXT STEPS
  • Research "Galilean group representations in quantum mechanics"
  • Study "Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula applications"
  • Examine "projective representations in physics"
  • Read Lévy-Leblond's papers on nonrelativistic particles and wave equations
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematicians, and researchers interested in quantum mechanics, particularly those focusing on Galilean invariance and projective representations in theoretical physics.

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
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K