Pauli-Lubanski pseudovector commutation relations

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the commutation relations of the Pauli-Lubanski pseudovector with the Lorentz transformation generators. The original poster attempts to derive the expression involving the commutation of the pseudovector with the generators but encounters difficulties in progressing further.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss various mathematical manipulations, including the use of antisymmetry arguments and index reshuffling. Some express uncertainty about justifying certain moves in their calculations, while others explore identities related to the antisymmetric properties of tensors.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants sharing their attempts and insights. Some have provided partial results and observations, while others have noted potential mistakes in earlier calculations. There is no explicit consensus, but several lines of reasoning are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the constraints of working within a four-dimensional Minkowski space, which influences the properties of antisymmetrized expressions. There are references to specific equations and identities that are relevant to the problem but not fully resolved.

Factvince
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Hi. This is not a homework question per se, but more of a personal question, but I thought I'd post it here.
I'm trying to prove the commutation relations of the Pauli-Lubanski pseudovector
\begin{equation}
W_\mu\equiv-\frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}J^{\nu\rho}P^\sigma
\end{equation}
with the Lorentz transformation generators \begin{equation}J^{\mu\nu}.\end{equation}

I'm supposed to find
\begin{equation}
\left[J_{\mu\nu},W_\rho\right]= \mathrm{i}\left( \eta_{\nu\rho}W_\mu-\eta_{\mu\rho}W_\nu\right)
\end{equation}

but I simply can't.

Homework Equations


Obviously I have to use
\begin{align}
\left[P_\mu,P_\nu\right]&= 0,\\
\left[P_\mu,J_{\nu\rho}\right]&= \mathrm{i}\left(\eta_{\mu\rho}P_\nu-\eta_{\mu\nu}P_\rho\right),\\
\left[J_{\mu\nu},J_{\rho\sigma}\right]&= \mathrm{i}\left(\eta_{\mu\rho}J_{\sigma\nu}- \eta_{\nu\rho}J_{\sigma\mu}- \eta_{\mu\sigma}J_{\rho\nu}+ \eta_{\nu\sigma}J_{\rho\mu}\right)
\end{align}

The Attempt at a Solution



My calculations gave
\begin{equation}
\left[J_{\kappa\lambda},W_\mu\right]= -i\left(\eta_{\tau\lambda} \epsilon_{\kappa\rho\mu\sigma} J^{\rho\tau}P^\sigma- \frac{1}{2} \eta_{\tau\lambda} \epsilon_{\kappa\rho\mu\sigma} J ^{\sigma\rho}P^\tau- \eta_{\tau\kappa} \epsilon_{\lambda\rho\mu\sigma} J^{\rho\tau}P^\sigma+ \frac{1}{2}\eta_{\tau\kappa} \epsilon_{\lambda\rho\mu\sigma} J^{\sigma\rho}P^\tau\right).
\end{equation}
I'm pretty confident this is correct, but in the meantime I don't see where to go when I get here.

Any help very much appreciated !
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

Hi Factvince! Welcome to PF! :wink:

You can restore that missing equation by pressing the "EDIT" button and typing a space at least every 50 characters (it's a PF bug). :smile:
 
Thanks very much tiny-tim !
 
I went a little further and I can sense I could do something with antisymmetry arguments here :

\begin{align*}
\left[W_\mu,J_{\kappa\lambda}\right]&= \frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\left\{\eta_{\tau\lambda}\left( \epsilon_{\mu\kappa\rho\sigma} J^{\rho\tau}P^\sigma+ \epsilon_{\mu\sigma\kappa\rho} J^{\tau\sigma}P^\rho+ \epsilon_{\mu\rho\kappa\sigma} J^{\sigma\rho}P^\tau\right)\right\}\\
&- \frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\left\{\eta_{\tau\kappa}\left( \epsilon_{\mu\lambda\rho\sigma} J^{\rho\tau}P^\sigma+ \epsilon_{\mu\sigma\lambda\rho}J ^{\tau\sigma}P^\rho+ \epsilon_{\mu\rho\lambda\sigma}J ^{\sigma\rho}P^\tau\right)\right\}.
\end{align*}

Being able to "switch" \mu and \tau would solve the problem, but I don't see any good way to justify such a move here.
 
Some Fierz reshuffling of indices seems to be useful.

I found for myself the following identity (not confirmed!):

\epsilon_{\kappa\lambda\mu\nu}g_{\sigma\tau}<br /> -\epsilon_{\kappa\lambda\tau\nu}g_{\sigma\mu}=<br /> \epsilon_{\mu\tau\lambda\nu}g_{\sigma\kappa}<br /> -\epsilon_{\mu\tau\kappa\nu}g_{\sigma\lambda}

This formula makes possible the exchange of the antisymmetric pair κλ with μτ.
(I know that the ordering of the indices in my formula is not perfect.)

For disentangling all those indices in the actual problem, I tried to use the pictorial notation of Penrose. But I didn't come to a solution either... :-/
 
My teacher gave me the answer months ago and I forgot about this thread: since Minkwoski space is four-dimensional, any expression which is antisymmetrised over five indices is identically zero. So one can write
\begin{equation}
\eta_{\tau\lambda}\epsilon_{\mu\varkappa\rho\sigma} + \eta_{\mu\lambda}\epsilon_{\varkappa\rho\sigma\tau} + \eta_{\varkappa\lambda}\epsilon_{\rho\sigma\tau\mu} + \eta_{\rho\lambda}\epsilon_{\sigma\tau\mu\varkappa} + \eta_{\sigma\lambda}\epsilon_{\tau\mu\varkappa\rho} = 0
\end{equation}
and that pretty much wraps it up. By the way, there were a couple of mistakes in the last result I gave due to the fact that I had the wrong sign for the
\begin{equation}
\left[P_\mu,J_{\nu\rho}\right]
\end{equation}
commutator.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K