Proving Shouten identity in QFT

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter LAHLH
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Identity Qft
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on proving the Shouten identity for twistors within the context of quantum field theory (QFT). Participants explore the implications of cyclic symmetry and antisymmetry in the identity, as well as the properties of twistors and their components.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the Shouten identity and notes its cyclic symmetry and antisymmetry properties.
  • Another participant suggests that because the variables q, r, and s each take on only two values, antisymmetrizing them leads to a result of zero.
  • A different participant expresses confusion regarding the implication of antisymmetry on the identity, asking for further clarification.
  • A later reply explains the nature of twistors as SU(2,2) spinors and introduces two Schouten identities, arguing that the linear dependence of any three twistors leads to the conclusion that antisymmetrizing them results in zero.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of understanding and confusion regarding the implications of antisymmetry and the properties of twistors. There is no consensus on the reasoning behind why the Shouten identity must equal zero.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the relationship between the properties of twistors and the Shouten identity, indicating a need for further clarification on the underlying assumptions and definitions involved.

LAHLH
Messages
405
Reaction score
2
Hi,

I'm trying to prove the Shouten identity for twistors:

[itex]\langle pq\rangle\langle rs\rangle+\langle pr\rangle\langle sq\rangle+\langle ps\rangle\langle qr\rangle=0[/itex]

It's easy to show that the LHS here is cyclically symmetric under [itex]q\to r\to s \to q[/itex], and also completely antisymmetric in q,r,s (just use [itex]\langle qr \rangle=-\langle rq \rangle[/itex] etc)

But why does this imply the LHS must be zero?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because q, r, s each take on only two values, so if you antisymmetrize on three of them you get zero.
 
Each twistor only has two spinorial components as far as I understand it. But then we are labeling each twistor by p,q,r,s and we have antisymmetry on q,r,s exchanges. I'm not sure I follow why this implies zero still, could you say some more please.
 
A twistor is a SU(2,2) spinor and is written as a pair of dotted and undotted Weyl spinors, ZI = (λA, μA·). From the Weyl spinors we form Lorentz invariant products <λi, λj> = εAB λiA λjB and [μi, μj] = εA·B· μiA· μjB·. For short, <λi, λj> ≡ <i j> and [μi, μj] ≡ [i j].

There are two Schouten identities,

<i j><k l> + <i k><l j> + <i l> <j k> = 0
[i j][k l] + [i k][l j] + [i l][j k] = 0

They just express the fact that the λ's (and the μ's) are objects that live in a two-space, consequently any three of them must be linearly dependent, and if you try to antisymmetrize on all three of them you'll get zero.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 175 ·
6
Replies
175
Views
28K