Making sense of Dirac's rotation operator in "General Theory of Relativity"

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation and application of Dirac's rotation operator in the context of gravitational waves as presented in his "General Theory of Relativity". Participants explore the mathematical formulation of the operator, its implications for the polarization of gravitational waves, and the discrepancies between Dirac's statements and conventional interpretations of rotation in tensor calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes Dirac's rotation operator as a simple ##\pi/2## rotation, applying it to the tensor ##u_{\mu\nu}## and expressing confusion over Dirac's results that seem inconsistent with standard rotation operations.
  • Another participant suggests that the operator ##R## is applied to each index of the tensor separately, leading to the addition of results, but questions the rationale behind this method.
  • Some participants argue about whether Dirac's operator constitutes a rotation, with one asserting that it is indeed a rotation while another contends that the application to the tensor does not align with typical rotational behavior.
  • A later reply introduces the concept of "Dirac Infinitesimal" rotations, suggesting that Dirac's approach may involve a unique formalism for small rotations that differs from conventional definitions.
  • There is a discussion about the differentiation of the rotation operator and its application to the metric tensor, with some participants expressing skepticism about the validity of this approach.
  • One participant emphasizes the need for clarity regarding how the operator acts on the tensor and questions the underlying assumptions of Dirac's method.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of Dirac's rotation operator, with no consensus reached on whether it constitutes a true rotation or how it should be applied to the tensor ##u_{\mu\nu}##. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing interpretations presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the potential confusion arising from Dirac's text and the lack of clarity regarding the operator's application to tensors. The discussion highlights the complexity of relating Dirac's formalism to standard tensor operations and the assumptions involved in interpreting his results.

  • #31
renormalize said:
Actually, both the Weinberg and Dirac helicities are eigenvalues, just those of two distinct (but related) eigensystems.
In terms of Dirac's ##R_{DI}##, Weinberg's helicities are the eigenvalues ##\omega_i## of the eigensystem:$$iR_{DI}\left(w_{i}\right)\equiv i\left(R_{DI}w_{i}+w_{i}R_{DI}^{T}\right)=\omega_{i}w_{i}\tag{W}$$where the ##w_i## are the eigentensors of ##iR_{DI}##. After some linear algebra, the 4 solutions of eigensystem ##\left(\text{W}\right)## are:$$
w_{+}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
-1 & i\\
i & 1
\end{array}\right),\:w_{-}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
-1 & -i\\
-i & 1
\end{array}\right),\:w_{a}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0\\
0 & 1
\end{array}\right),\:w_{b}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -1\\
1 & 0
\end{array}\right)
$$along with their associated eigenvalues:$$\omega_{\pm}=\pm2,\:\omega_{a}=\omega_{b}=0$$Using this Weinberg eigentensor basis, we can decompose a 2D general (not necessarily symmetric) real rank-2 tensor ##u## as:$$
u\equiv\left(\begin{array}{cc}
u_{11} & u_{12}\\
u_{21} & u_{22}
\end{array}\right)=u_{2}^{+}w_{+}+u_{2}^{-}w_{-}+u_{0}^{a}w_{a}+u_{0}^{b}w_{b}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
u_{0}^{a}-u_{2}^{+}-u_{2}^{-} & -u_{0}^{b}+i\left(u_{2}^{+}-u_{2}^{-}\right)\\
u_{0}^{b}+i\left(u_{2}^{+}-u_{2}^{-}\right) & u_{0}^{a}+u_{2}^{+}+u_{2}^{-}
\end{array}\right)
$$Solving for the mode coefficients of the eigentensors in terms of the matrix entries gives:$$u_{2}^{\pm}=\frac{1}{4}\left(u_{22}-u_{11}\mp i\left(u_{12}+u_{21}\right)\right),\:u_{0}^{a}=\frac{1}{2}\left(u_{11}+u_{22}\right),\:u_{0}^{b}=\frac{1}{2}\left(u_{21}-u_{12}\right)$$So we have the following table of eigenmode coefficients and associated helicity eigenvalues:
$$
\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline \text{Mode} & \text{Weinberg helicity } h=\omega\\
\hline u_{22}-u_{11}\mp i\left(u_{12}+u_{21}\right) & \pm2\\
\hline u_{11}+u_{22} & 0\\
\hline u_{21}-u_{12} & 0\\
\hline
\end{array}
$$As you note, Weinberg's helicity-2 modes are necessarily complex.
Dirac, on the other hand, considers the eigensystem constructed from the square of ##iR_{DI}##, solves to find that system's eigenvalues ##\delta_i## and then defines ##\pm\sqrt{\delta}## to be the helicity of a mode. Specifically, the Dirac eigensystem is:$$iR_{DI}\left(iR_{DI}\left(d_{i}\right)\right)=\delta_{i}d_{i}\tag{D}$$with the 4 solutions:$$
d_{1} =\left(\begin{array}{cc}
-1 & 0\\
0 & 1
\end{array}\right),\:d_{2}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1\\
1 & 0
\end{array}\right),\:d_{3}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0\\
0 & 1
\end{array}\right),\:d_{4}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -1\\
1 & 0
\end{array}\right)
$$$$\delta_{1}=4,\:\delta_{2}=4,\:\delta_{3}=\delta_{4}=0$$Decomposing ##u## in this Dirac basis yields:$$
u\equiv\left(\begin{array}{cc}
u_{11} & u_{12}\\
u_{21} & u_{22}
\end{array}\right)=u_{1}d_{1}+u_{2}d_{2}+u_{3}d_{3}+u_{4}d_{4}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
-u_{1}+u_{3} & u_{2}-u_{4}\\
u_{2}+u_{4} & u_{1}+u_{3}
\end{array}\right)
$$so that:$$u_{1}=\frac{1}{2}\left(u_{22}-u_{11}\right),\:u_{2}=\frac{1}{2}\left(u_{12}+u_{21}\right),\:u_{3}=\frac{1}{2}\left(u_{11}+u_{22}\right),\:u_{4}=\frac{1}{2}\left(u_{21}-u_{12}\right)$$The helicity table for Dirac eigenmodes is therefore:
$$
\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline\text{Mode} & \text{Dirac helicity } h=\pm\sqrt{\delta}\\
\hline u_{22}-u_{11} & \pm2\\
\hline u_{12}+u_{21} & \pm2\\
\hline u_{11}+u_{22} & 0\\
\hline u_{21}-u_{12} & 0\\
\hline
\end{array}
$$All of Dirac's modes are real.
Weinberg's approach is natural for describing complex gravitational plane waves while Dirac's definition has the virtue of yielding strictly real eigenmodes for a given helicity. In my opinion, which is the "right" version of eigenmodes and helicities comes down to a matter of convenience and/or taste.
Just a last note, while you compute the four eigenbasis matrices ##d_i \, (i=1,2,3,4)## of the operator ##(iR)^2## which have eigenvalues ##4, 0##, you do not immediately see the eigenbasis matrices ##w_i## of ##iR## which have eigenvalues ##\pm 2, 0##. These were, of course, obtained previously and directly by solving the eigenvalue equation with the operator ##iR##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
868
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K