How can Minkowski spacetime be expressed as a U(2) manifold?

etotheipi
Homework Statement
It's question 6 of Example Sheet 1, very near the bottom of this document:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9707012.pdf
An image is attached below
Relevant Equations
N/A
1618677370034.png


Firstly, since ##\{ \mathbb{I}, \sigma_x, \sigma_y, \sigma_z \}## is a basis of the space of ##2 \times 2## Hermitian matrices, and because ##X = t \mathbb{I} + x\sigma_x - y \sigma_y + z \sigma_z##, the map is one-to-one (because each matrix has unique decomposition). It's also easily checked the determinant of ##dX## is ##-ds^2##.

Next, need to show that any unitary ##U## can be expressed as asked. Consider an arbitrary ##U = \begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix}##, then by constraining ##U U^{\dagger} = U^{\dagger} U = \mathbb{I}## we may write ##aa^* + bb^* = aa^* + cc^* + dd^* + cc^* = bb^* + dd^* = 1## and ##ac^* + bd^* = ab^* + cd^* = 0##.

It follows from the first four that ##|a| = |d| \implies d = a^* e^{i \varphi_1}## for some ##\varphi_1## and likewise ##|b| = |c| \implies c = b^* e^{i \varphi_2}## for some ##\varphi_2##. Thus, substituting for ##c## and ##d^*## in the equation ##ab^* + cd^*=0## gives\begin{align*}
ab^*(1 + e^{i (\varphi_2 - \varphi_1)}) = 0 &\implies \varphi_2 = \varphi_1 + (2n+1)\pi \\

&\implies e^{i \varphi_2} = e^{i \varphi_1} e^{2n\pi i} e^{i \pi} = - e^{i \varphi_1}
\end{align*}Therefore, defining a new parameter ##\tau## by ##\tau := \varphi_1 / 2##, and similarly defining ##\alpha := a \text{exp}(-i \varphi_1 / 2)## and ##\beta := b \text{exp}(-i \varphi_1 / 2)##, the most general form is indeed ##U = e^{i \tau} \begin{pmatrix} \alpha & \beta \\ -\beta^* & \alpha^* \end{pmatrix}## which satisfies ##|\alpha|^2 + |\beta|^2 = |a|^2 + |b|^2 = 1##.

I am confused how to do the last part, i.e. to express the metric in terms of the parameters of ##U##. From the definition of the Cayley map we can write down ##(1-iX)dU = i(1+U)dX = 2dU(1+U)^{-1}##, but I don't see how that helps. I'd be grateful for a hint about how to get started; thanks :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Actually, I figured out how to do it. You can just take the determinant of the relation they asked you to use, and substitute for ##\mathrm{det}(dU)##. Welp, sorry for posting 🙃
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top