Is the Lorentz Boost Generator Commutator Zero?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the calculation of the commutator involving the Lorentz boost generator and the antisymmetric tensor. The initial formula for the commutator is presented, but the calculation leads to confusion regarding the cancellation of terms. A specific case where the indices are set to α=1 and β=2 shows that the commutator evaluates to zero, suggesting potential sign errors in the terms. The author concludes that demonstrating the zero value of the term involving the metric tensor and the generators requires further algebraic manipulation, which remains unresolved. The conversation emphasizes the complexity of handling these mathematical expressions in the context of quantum mechanics and field theory.
han
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Show that ##[\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} M_{\mu \nu}M_{\rho\sigma},M_{\alpha\beta}]=0## where ##M_{\mu\nu}## is a Lorentz boost generator
Relevant Equations
The commutation relation of ##M_{\mu\nu}## is given: $$[M_{\rho \sigma},M_{\alpha\beta}]=i(g_{\rho\beta}M_{\sigma\alpha}+g_{\sigma\alpha}M_{\rho\beta}-g_{\rho\alpha}M_{\sigma\beta}-g_{\sigma\beta}M_{\rho\alpha}).$$
Using above formula, I could calculate the given commutator.
$$
[\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} M_{\mu \nu}M_{\rho\sigma},M_{\alpha\beta}]=i\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(M_{\mu \nu}[M_{\rho\sigma},M_{\alpha\beta}]+[M_{\rho\sigma},M_{\alpha\beta}]M_{\mu \nu})
$$
(because ##\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}=\epsilon^{\rho\sigma\mu\nu}##, ##(\mu\nu)\leftrightarrow(\rho\sigma)## preserves the result in the 2nd term)
$$
=i\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(g_{\rho\beta}(M_{\mu\nu}M_{\sigma\alpha}+M_{\sigma\alpha}M_{\mu\nu})+g_{\sigma\alpha}(M_{\mu\nu}M_{\rho\beta}+M_{\rho\beta}M_{\mu\nu})-g_{\rho\alpha}(M_{\mu\nu}M_{\sigma\beta}+M_{\sigma\beta}M_{\mu\nu})-g_{\sigma\beta}(M_{\mu\nu}M_{\rho\alpha}+M_{\rho\alpha}M_{\mu\nu}))
$$

And my calculation stuck here. I could not find any clue that the terms in above formula cancel each other.

I personally checked that for a specific example like taking ##\alpha=1, \beta=2##, the commutator is indeed zero.

It feels like any sign in the 3rd or 4th term is miscalculated and symmetricity in ##\rho## and ##\sigma## combines with the antisymmetric tensor and give the result zero, but I could not find where did I make a mistake on the signs.

Additionally, the term ##\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} M_{\mu \nu}M_{\rho\sigma}## is not explicity zero for example on spinor, where ##M_{\mu \nu}=\frac{i}{4}[\gamma^{\mu},\gamma^{\nu}]##, you can check that the given expression is proportional to ##\gamma^5##.

Edit: I found out by directly calculating that $$
\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}g_{\rho\beta}(M_{\mu\nu}M_{\sigma\alpha}+M_{\sigma\alpha}M_{\mu\nu})$$
term itself is already zero. Again for example when ##\alpha=1,\beta=2## case,
$$
\begin{align}
\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}g_{\rho 2}(M_{\mu\nu}M_{\sigma 1}+M_{\sigma 1}M_{\mu\nu})\\ \nonumber
&=\epsilon^{\mu\nu 23}g_{22}(M_{\mu\nu}M_{31}+M_{31}M_{\mu\nu})+\epsilon^{\mu\nu 20}g_{22}(M_{\mu\nu}M_{01}+M_{01}M_{\mu\nu})\\ \nonumber
&=\epsilon^{0123}g_{22}(M_{01}M_{31}+M_{31}M_{01})+\epsilon^{1320}g_{22}(M_{13}M_{01}+M_{01}M_{13})\\ \nonumber
&=-(M_{01}M_{31}+M_{31}M_{01})+(M_{31}M_{01}+M_{01}M_{31})=0 \nonumber
\end{align}
$$
(Using ##g_{00}=+1, g_{11}=g_{22}=g_{33}=-1## convention)
So it's enough to show that the form ##\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}g_{\rho\beta}(M_{\mu\nu}M_{\sigma\alpha}+M_{\sigma\alpha}M_{\mu\nu})## is zero. But I have no clue how to show this formula is zero with algebraic steps, like switching indicies and cancel the terms out.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
han said:
[....]

Using above formula, I could calculate the given commutator.
$$
[\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} M_{\mu \nu}M_{\rho\sigma},M_{\alpha\beta}]=i\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(M_{\mu \nu}[M_{\rho\sigma},M_{\alpha\beta}]+[M_{\rho\sigma},M_{\alpha\beta}]M_{\mu \nu})
$$
I believe this should read...
$$
[\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} M_{\mu \nu}M_{\rho\sigma},M_{\alpha\beta}]=i\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(M_{\mu \nu}[M_{\rho\sigma},M_{\alpha\beta}]+[M_{\mu\nu},M_{\alpha\beta}]M_{\rho \sigma})
$$
Lie brackets obey a Leibniz rule: [AB,C] = A[B,C]+[A,C]B.
In detail: [AB,C]=ABC-CAB = ABC-ACB+ACB-CAB.
 
jambaugh said:
I believe this should read...
$$
[\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} M_{\mu \nu}M_{\rho\sigma},M_{\alpha\beta}]=i\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(M_{\mu \nu}[M_{\rho\sigma},M_{\alpha\beta}]+[M_{\mu\nu},M_{\alpha\beta}]M_{\rho \sigma})
$$
Lie brackets obey a Leibniz rule: [AB,C] = A[B,C]+[A,C]B.
In detail: [AB,C]=ABC-CAB = ABC-ACB+ACB-CAB.
You can check that
$$
[\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} M_{\mu \nu}M_{\rho\sigma},M_{\alpha\beta}]=\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(M_{\mu \nu}[M_{\rho\sigma},M_{\alpha\beta}]+[M_{\mu\nu},M_{\alpha\beta}]M_{\rho \sigma})=\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(M_{\mu \nu}[M_{\rho\sigma},M_{\alpha\beta}]+[M_{\rho\sigma},M_{\alpha\beta}]M_{\mu \nu})
$$

Because
$$
\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}[M_{\mu\nu},M_{\alpha\beta}]M_{\rho \sigma})=\epsilon^{\rho\sigma\mu\nu}[M_{\rho \sigma},M_{\alpha\beta}]M_{\mu\nu})=\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}[M_{\rho \sigma},M_{\alpha\beta}]M_{\mu\nu})
$$
##\mu\nu\rho\sigma## and ##\rho\sigma\mu\nu## both are even permutations.
 
At first, I derived that: $$\nabla \frac 1{\mu}=-\frac 1{{\mu}^3}\left((1-\beta^2)+\frac{\dot{\vec\beta}\cdot\vec R}c\right)\vec R$$ (dot means differentiation with respect to ##t'##). I assume this result is true because it gives valid result for magnetic field. To find electric field one should also derive partial derivative of ##\vec A## with respect to ##t##. I've used chain rule, substituted ##\vec A## and used derivative of product formula. $$\frac {\partial \vec A}{\partial t}=\frac...