Lorentz Transformation of Scalar Fields

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
3 replies · 4K views
waht
Messages
1,502
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement



Working on an exercise from Srednicki's QFT and something is not clear.

Show that

[tex][\varphi(x), M^{uv}] = \mathcal{L}^{uv} \varphi(x)[/tex]

where

[tex]\mathcal{L}^{uv} = \frac{\hbar}{i} (x^u \partial^v - x^v \partial^u )[/tex]

Homework Equations



(1) [tex]U(\Lambda)^{-1} \varphi(x) U(\Lambda) = \varphi(\Lambda^{-1}x)[/tex]

(2) [tex]\Lambda = 1 + \delta\omega[/tex]

where [tex]\delta\omega [/itex] is an infinitesimal, and<br /> <br /> (3) [tex]U(\Lambda) = I + \frac{i}{2\hbar} \delta\omega_{uv} M^{uv}[/tex]<br /> <br /> <h2>The Attempt at a Solution</h2><br /> <br /> Got the left side of (1) equal to<br /> <br /> [tex]\varphi(x) + \frac{i}{2\hbar}\delta\omega_{uv}[\varphi(x), M^{uv}][/tex]<br /> <br /> but not sure what to do with the right side and how to get the desired derivatives. I suspect<br /> it has something to do with the transformation (1) of its derivative, but so far no luck.<br /> <br /> [tex]U(\Lambda)^{-1} \partial^u \varphi(x) U(\Lambda) = \Lambda^{u}_{ p} \bar{\partial}^p \varphi(\Lambda^{-1}x)[/tex][/tex]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
1) What does Eq. (2) give you for the inverse of \Lambda?

2) use that expression to Taylor expand the right-hand side of your Eq. (1): that should also give you \phi(x) plus something...
 
borgwal said:
1) What does Eq. (2) give you for the inverse of \Lambda?

Would it be

[tex]\Lambda^{-1} = 1 - \delta\omega[/tex]

and taking the second order [itex]O(\delta\omega^2)[/itex] to zero.

2) use that expression to Taylor expand the right-hand side of your Eq. (1): that should also give you \phi(x) plus something...

If I were to Taylor that then would get something like [itex]\varphi(0) + \varphi^{,}(0)[/itex]

but that doesn't seem right
 
what said:
Would it be

[tex]\Lambda^{-1} = 1 - \delta\omega[/tex]

and taking the second order [itex]O(\delta\omega^2)[/itex] to zero.



If I were to Taylor that then would get something like [itex]\varphi(0) + \varphi^{,}(0)[/itex]

but that doesn't seem right

The first part is correct, the second isn't (but getting close): check your Taylor expansion: what's \phi(x+\epsilon)?