Proving the Isomorphism Property of the Spinor Map in SL(2,C) and SO(3,1)

  • Thread starter Thread starter gentsagree
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Group
gentsagree
Messages
93
Reaction score
1
In the context of the homomorphism between SL(2,C) and SO(3,1), I have that

\textbf{x}=\overline{\sigma}_{\mu}x^{\mu}

x^{\mu}=\frac{1}{2}tr(\sigma^{\mu}\textbf{x})

give the explicit form of the isomorphism, where \textbf{x} is a 2x2 matrix of SL(2,C) and x^{\mu} a 4-vector of SO(3,1).

Considering the linear map (the spinor map)

\textbf{x}\rightarrow\textbf{x}'=A\textbf{x}A^{\dagger}

one can show that the 4-vectors on the SO(3,1) side are also linearly related by

x'^{\mu}=\phi(A)^{\mu}_{\nu}x^{\nu}

where it is easy to show that

\phi(A)^{\mu}_{\nu}=\frac{1}{2}tr(\sigma^{\mu}A\overline{\sigma}_{\nu}A^{\dagger})

I understand all this, but I want to prove that \phi(AB)=\phi(A)\phi(B). How would I go about doing this? I tried a few things but not very successfully.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I can't copy paste the proof here, I can only tell you where to find it: Mueller-Kirsten + Wiedemann's <Supersymmetry> (WS, 1987), pages 66 and 67.
 
Thanks a lot dextercioby, the book is really helpful!
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top