Representation of Lorentz algebra

naima
Gold Member
Messages
936
Reaction score
54
i find here a representation of the Lorentz algebra.
Starting from the matrix representation (with the ##\lambda## parameter) i see
how one gets the matrix form of ##iJ_z##
I am less comfortable with the ## -i y\partial_x + x \partial_y## notation
Where does it come from? They say that it is a killing vector on ##R^4##
I suppose that this is basic but as i read it in a physics paper i have not the complete background.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let's look at an infinitesimal rotation around the ##z##-axis, by a positive infinitesimal angle ##\alpha##. We can just draw a diagram of the x-y plane and rotate the axes a bit counter clockwise. Then we'll see that
$$\begin{split}
& x \rightarrow x' = x + \alpha y, \\
& y \rightarrow y' = y - \alpha x, \\
& z \rightarrow z' = z. \end{split}$$
Now check that
$$\begin{split}
& - \alpha ( x \partial_y - y \partial_x) x = \alpha y, \\
& - \alpha ( x \partial_y - y \partial_x) y = - \alpha x. \end{split}$$
Therefore
$$ \delta x^k = i \alpha J_z x^k$$
if we define
$$ J_z = i ( x \partial_y - y \partial_x).$$

Further, we can show that ##J_z## is a Killing vector for the Minkowski metric. The Killing condition is
$$ (J_z)_{\mu ; \nu} + (J_z)_{\nu ; \mu} =0.$$
Since the Minkowski metric is flat, the covariant derivatives reduce to ordinary derivatives and the Killing condition becomes:
$$0 = (J_z)_{x ,y} + (J_z)_{y,x} = \partial_y ( -i y) + \partial_x ( i x),$$
which is obviously satisfied.

One can derive the rest of the generators by examining the other infinitesimal rotations and boosts and then verifying that the Killing equation is satisfied as I did above. Or else one can just compute the rest of the Killing vectors and then see that they have an interpretations as generators.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...

Similar threads

Back
Top