Is the Lorentz Boost Generator Commutator Zero?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the calculation of the commutator involving the Lorentz boost generator, specifically the expression $$[\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} M_{\mu \nu}M_{\rho\sigma},M_{\alpha\beta}]$$. Participants confirm that for specific indices, such as $$\alpha=1$$ and $$\beta=2$$, the commutator evaluates to zero. The conversation highlights the importance of the antisymmetry of the Levi-Civita symbol $$\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$$ and the properties of the generators $$M_{\mu\nu}$$, particularly in relation to the Leibniz rule for Lie brackets. A key conclusion is that the term $$\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}g_{\rho\beta}(M_{\mu\nu}M_{\sigma\alpha}+M_{\sigma\alpha}M_{\mu\nu})$$ simplifies to zero under specific conditions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lie algebra and Lie brackets
  • Familiarity with the properties of the Levi-Civita symbol $$\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$$
  • Knowledge of Lorentz transformations and generators $$M_{\mu\nu}$$
  • Basic concepts of quantum mechanics and spinors
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the Levi-Civita symbol in tensor calculus
  • Explore the structure of Lie algebras and their applications in physics
  • Learn about the implications of antisymmetry in quantum mechanics
  • Investigate the role of spinors in quantum field theory
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, particularly those specializing in quantum mechanics and field theory, mathematicians interested in algebraic structures, and students studying advanced topics in theoretical physics.

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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K