How to Derive Specific Commutation Relations for Lorentz Generators?

  • Thread starter Thread starter G01
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Qft
G01
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
2,709
Reaction score
19

Homework Statement



Derive the following commutation relations from the general commutation relation for the Lorentz generators:

[tex][J_i,J_j]=i\hbar\epsilon_{ijk}J_k[/tex]

[tex][J_i,K_j]=i\hbar\epsilon_{ijk}K_k[/tex]

[tex][K_i,K_j]=-i\hbar\epsilon_{ijk}J_k[/tex]

Homework Equations



The commutator for the Lorentz generators:

[tex][M^{\mu\nu},M^{\rho\sigma}]= i\hbar ((g^{\mu\rho}M^{\nu\sigma} - (\mu \leftrightarrow \nu))-(\rho \leftrightarrow \sigma))[/tex][tex]J_i=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ijk}M^{jk}[/tex]

[tex]K_i=M^{i0}[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



I've got the first one.

The second two I'm having slight problems and just need help finding my mistake.

For the second commutator, I have an extra factor of 1/2 on the RHS. I start from:

[tex][M^{jk},M^{j0}]= i\hbar ((g^{jj}M^{k0} - (\mu \doublearrow \nu))-(\rho \doublearrow \sigma))[/tex]

Only the first term on the right have side is non zero since all off diagonal g are 0.

Now this implies:

[tex][J_{i},K_j]= \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ijk}i\hbar M^{k0}[/tex]

How do I get rid of that pesky 1/2?

Similarly on the third commutator:

I start from the same place and get to the line:

[tex][K_i,K_j]=[M^{i0},M^{k0}]=-i\hbar M^{ij}[/tex]

I can't figure out how to put the RHS in terms of J_k without getting a factor of 2!

Any help will be appreciated. I'm sure its just stupid errors. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
on Phys.org
For part b, I don't think you should be getting to [itex][M^{jk},M^{j0}[/itex] at all. It looks like you may be mixing up two different indices: the j in
[tex][J_i,K_j] = i\hbar\epsilon_{ijk}K_{k}[/tex]
is not the same as the j in
[tex]J_i = \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ijk}M^{jk}[/tex]
It might help to rewrite the definitions of J and K as
[tex]J_a = \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{abc}M^{bc}[/tex]
[tex]K_d = M^{d0}[/tex]
to keep the different indices straight.

Then again, I tried to do the problem myself and I'm getting the same extra factor of 1/2 that you are...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K