Solving Tricky Pauli Matrices with Einstein Notation

[emma83]

Hello,
I am trying to recover the following calculation (where K,A are 4x4 matrices in SL(2,C)):

--(start)--
"We expand K'=AKA^{\dagger} in terms of k^a and k'^{a}=(\delta_a^{b} + \lambda_a^{b} d\tau)k^b. Multiplying by a general Pauli matrix and using the relation \frac{1}{2}tr(\sigma_{a}\sigma_{b})=\delta_{ab} yields the expression:
<br /> \lambda_b^{a} = \frac{1}{2}\eta^{ac}tr(\sigma_{b}\sigma_{c}A+\sigma_{c}\sigma_{b}A^{\dagger})<br />."
--(end)--

I have been playing with the relations for a while but I guess I miss some knowledge on the properties of Pauli matrices because I don't manage to find the result. In particular, what would the "expansion" of AKA^{\dagger} (which I guess is necessary here?) look like in Einstein summation notation ? Any help would be extremely appreciated!

 

[ryuunoseika]

the answer lies on wikipedia.

 

[tiny-tim]

the answer lies on wikipedia.

Well, give a link, then … which article?

 

[emma83]

Well I had of course already checked beforehand the wikipedia page on Pauli matrices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_matrices) but had not found a relation to solve this problem... So Ryuunoseika, which article are you talking about ?

 

[George Jones]

Something here seems either not quite right or incomplete.

If k&#039;^{a} = \left(\delta_b^{a} + \lambda_b^{a} d\tau \right) k^b (careful with index placement) and d \tau is infinitesimal (?), then k&#039; and k differ by an infinitesimal amount, so the transformation is an infinitesimal version of K&#039;=AKA^{\dagger}. Then, the sum in final result could come from the product rule.

I'm just guessing. More context is needed.

 

[emma83]

Dear George,

Thanks a lot for your answer. First, yes sorry I misplaced the indices in the first relation, the correct relation is:
k&#039;_{a}=(\delta_a^{b} + \lambda_a^{b} d\tau)k_b

Concerning d\tau, it is actually a \delta u, where u is the affine parameter along the trajectory of a photon.

But what do you mean by "product rule" ? Do I have to develop explicitely AKA^{\dagger} in indices notation and try to recover at the end the A and A^{\dagger} which appear in the trace ?