I Solve Exercise 2.4 in Supergravity by Freedman & Van Proeyen

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Korybut
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Identity
Korybut
Messages
74
Reaction score
4
Hi there!

I am reading textbook "Supergravity" by Freedman and Van Proeyen and got stuck on a simple exercise (Ex 2.4). Usually I would proceed further marking it as a typo but I've checked the errata list on the website and didn't find this exercise there

Exercise 2.4 Show that ## A\bar{\sigma}_\mu A^\dagger=\bar{\sigma}_\nu \Lambda^{-1}{}^\nu{}_\mu## and ##A^\dagger \sigma A=\sigma_\nu \Lambda^\nu{}_\mu## . This gives precise meaning to the statement that the matrices ##\bar{\sigma}_\mu## and ##\sigma_\nu## are 4-vectors

Sigma matrices in this book are defined as

$$\sigma_\mu=\left(-\mathbb{1},\sigma_i\right),\;\;\; \bar{\sigma}_\mu=\sigma^\mu=\left(\mathbb{1},\sigma_i\right).$$

And SL(2,C) transformations is defined as
$$ \mathbf{x}^\prime \equiv A \mathbf{x} A^\dagger$$

The first identity in the exercise is kinda straightforward and it is also easy to see that the second one holds for barred sigma-matrices. But I didn't managed to work out the identity in the form written in the exercise

Is it a typo or I missing something very deep?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It looks like the only difference between the barred and unbarred sigma matrices is that ##\sigma_0 = -1## while ##\bar \sigma_0 = 1##. Since 1 is just the identity matrix, I don't see how you could have gotten different results for the barred vs. unbarred case.
 
Since it is involved in the contraction on r.h.s. of the identity it makes difference.

This identity is true
$$ A^\dagger \bar{\sigma}_\mu A=\bar{\sigma}_\nu\Lambda^\nu{}_\mu.$$
And it is kinda obvious. When I apply inverse SL(2,C) transformation it should result in inverse Lorentz transformation.

Also one may show the following

$$A^\dagger \sigma_\nu A=\sum_\mu \sigma_\mu \Lambda_\mu{}^\nu$$
(I know that it looks weird from tensor calculus perspective. By writing this I mean one should extract exact values (for particular ##\mu## and ##\nu##)in some referrence frame)

The initial identity is proven if ## \Lambda_\mu{}^\nu=\Lambda^\mu{}_\nu##, but it is not true
 
Last edited:
After some thinking and asking I believe that this identity may be true due different index structure of sigma matrices

$$ \sigma_{\mu \alpha \dot{\alpha}}, \bar{\sigma}_\mu {}^{\dot{\alpha} \alpha}$$

If someone has a nice comprehensive refference on this spinor algebra issues I would be very thankful.

P.S. It can really drive someone insane when one sees the expression like ## (M^T)_\alpha {}^\beta## without any explanation on the meaning of this notation.
 
This is an alert about a claim regarding the standard model, that got a burst of attention in the past two weeks. The original paper came out last year: "The electroweak η_W meson" by Gia Dvali, Archil Kobakhidze, Otari Sakhelashvili (2024) The recent follow-up and other responses are "η_W-meson from topological properties of the electroweak vacuum" by Dvali et al "Hiding in Plain Sight, the electroweak η_W" by Giacomo Cacciapaglia, Francesco Sannino, Jessica Turner "Astrophysical...
this thread is to open up discussion on Gravi-GUT as theories of everything GUT or Grand Unified Theories attempt to unify the 3 forces of weak E&M and strong force, and Gravi-GUT want to add gravity. this peer reviewed paper in a journal on Gravi-GUT Chirality in unified theories of gravity F. Nesti1 and R. Percacci2 Phys. Rev. D 81, 025010 – Published 14 January, 2010 published by Physical Review D this paper is cited by another more recent Gravi-GUT these papers and research...
Back
Top