QFT: Srendicki Problem 2.4

  • Thread starter G01
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Qft
This conversation is discussing how to derive specific commutation relations from a general commutation relation for Lorentz generators. The general commutation relation is [M^{\mu\nu},M^{\rho\sigma}]= i\hbar ((g^{\mu\rho}M^{\nu\sigma} - (\mu \leftrightarrow \nu))-(\rho \leftrightarrow \sigma)) and from this, we can derive the following commutation relations: [J_i,J_j]=i\hbar\epsilon_{ijk}J_k, [J_i,K_j]=i\hbar\epsilon_{ijk}K_k, and [K_i,K_j]=-i\hbar\epsilon_{ijk}J_k. To do
  • #1
G01
Homework Helper
Gold Member
2,704
19

Homework Statement



Derive the following commutation relations from the general commutation relation for the Lorentz generators:

[tex] [J_i,J_j]=i\hbar\epsilon_{ijk}J_k[/tex]

[tex][J_i,K_j]=i\hbar\epsilon_{ijk}K_k[/tex]

[tex][K_i,K_j]=-i\hbar\epsilon_{ijk}J_k[/tex]

Homework Equations



The commutator for the Lorentz generators:

[tex][M^{\mu\nu},M^{\rho\sigma}]= i\hbar ((g^{\mu\rho}M^{\nu\sigma} - (\mu \leftrightarrow \nu))-(\rho \leftrightarrow \sigma))[/tex][tex]J_i=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ijk}M^{jk}[/tex]

[tex]K_i=M^{i0}[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



I've got the first one.

The second two I'm having slight problems and just need help finding my mistake.

For the second commutator, I have an extra factor of 1/2 on the RHS. I start from:

[tex][M^{jk},M^{j0}]= i\hbar ((g^{jj}M^{k0} - (\mu \doublearrow \nu))-(\rho \doublearrow \sigma))[/tex]

Only the first term on the right have side is non zero since all off diagonal g are 0.

Now this implies:

[tex][J_{i},K_j]= \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ijk}i\hbar M^{k0}[/tex]

How do I get rid of that pesky 1/2?

Similarly on the third commutator:

I start from the same place and get to the line:

[tex][K_i,K_j]=[M^{i0},M^{k0}]=-i\hbar M^{ij}[/tex]

I can't figure out how to put the RHS in terms of J_k without getting a factor of 2!

Any help will be appreciated. I'm sure its just stupid errors. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
For part b, I don't think you should be getting to [itex][M^{jk},M^{j0}[/itex] at all. It looks like you may be mixing up two different indices: the j in
[tex][J_i,K_j] = i\hbar\epsilon_{ijk}K_{k}[/tex]
is not the same as the j in
[tex]J_i = \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ijk}M^{jk}[/tex]
It might help to rewrite the definitions of J and K as
[tex]J_a = \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{abc}M^{bc}[/tex]
[tex]K_d = M^{d0}[/tex]
to keep the different indices straight.

Then again, I tried to do the problem myself and I'm getting the same extra factor of 1/2 that you are...
 

1. What is the Srendicki Problem 2.4 in QFT?

The Srendicki Problem 2.4 in QFT (Quantum Field Theory) is a theoretical problem that addresses the inconsistency between the Lorentz invariance of the classical field theory and the quantum nature of particles.

2. Why is the Srendicki Problem 2.4 important in QFT?

The Srendicki Problem 2.4 is important in QFT because it highlights the difficulties in reconciling classical field theory with quantum mechanics, which is a fundamental aspect of understanding the nature of the universe at a fundamental level.

3. What is the proposed solution to the Srendicki Problem 2.4?

The proposed solution to the Srendicki Problem 2.4 is the use of quantum field theory, which incorporates both classical and quantum mechanics, to provide a consistent theoretical framework for describing the behavior of particles and fields.

4. How does the Srendicki Problem 2.4 impact our understanding of the universe?

The Srendicki Problem 2.4 has a significant impact on our understanding of the universe as it highlights the need for a more comprehensive theory that can explain the behavior of both particles and fields, and how they interact. It also raises important questions about the nature of space and time.

5. Are there any experimental or observational evidence for the Srendicki Problem 2.4?

There is currently no direct experimental or observational evidence for the Srendicki Problem 2.4. However, the predictions of quantum field theory have been successfully tested and verified in numerous experiments, providing indirect evidence for its validity as a solution to the problem.

Similar threads

  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
468
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
621
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
772
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
970
Back
Top