Spinorial Field Representation

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Breo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field Representation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

This discussion revolves around the representation of spinorial fields in the context of the Lorentz group, specifically focusing on the decomposition of spinor products and the properties of related mathematical structures. Participants explore theoretical aspects, mathematical reasoning, and implications of group theory in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the notation and meaning of the representation $ (\frac{1}{2}, 0) \oplus (0, \frac{1}{2})$, seeking clarification on its structure and significance.
  • Another participant explains that $(\frac{1}{2}, 0)$ and $(0, \frac{1}{2})$ are irreducible representations of the Lorentz group, referring to them as left-handed and right-handed Weyl spinors, and notes that the $\oplus$ symbol indicates a direct sum of representations.
  • A participant inquires about the decomposition of the tensor product of two spinors, leading to a detailed expression involving multiple representations, and asks for clarification on how to interpret the resulting terms.
  • Suggestions are made to consult specific texts on group theory for further understanding, with references to Wu Ki Tung's and Miller's books, highlighting their relevance to the discussion.
  • Participants discuss the dimensions of the representations and the calculation of terms in the context of tensor products, with one participant expressing confusion about the number of terms and dimensions involved.
  • There is a mention of Fierz identities and their application to Dirac spinors in Minkowski spacetime, with a link provided for further reading.
  • One participant expresses a desire to understand the properties of traces in matrix algebra, indicating a need for foundational knowledge in theoretical physics.
  • Another participant provides insights into the traceless nature of certain matrices, including $\gamma^\mu$ and $\gamma_5$, and discusses the implications of these properties in calculations involving traces.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement on the definitions and properties of representations, but there are also points of confusion and differing levels of understanding regarding the implications of these representations and their mathematical treatment. The discussion remains unresolved on several technical aspects, particularly concerning the decomposition of spinorial products.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about foundational concepts in group theory and representation theory, indicating a potential gap in knowledge that may affect their understanding of the discussion. The complexity of the mathematical structures involved and the specific definitions used may also contribute to the ongoing questions.

Breo
Messages
176
Reaction score
0
What does mean the next (why we write it like this, why is a sum, why first a 0 and secondly a 1/2 and viceversa):

$$ (\frac{1}{2} , 0 ) \oplus (0, \frac{1}{2}) $$

?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you know how the representations of the Lorentz group are classified? The (1/2, 0) and (0, 1/2) are two irreducible representations of the Lorentz group. These representations are also called the "left-handed Weyl spinor" and the "right-handed Weyl spinor." The ##\oplus## is the symbol for a direct sum of group representations.
 
I asked this to eventually understand the next decomposition. If we take the tensor product of 2 spinors ## \Psi\Psi* ##:

$$[(\frac{1}{2}, 0 ) \oplus (0, \frac{1}{2})] \otimes [(\frac{1}{2}, 0 ) \oplus (0, \frac{1}{2})] = 2(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}) \oplus (1,0) \oplus 2(0, 0 ) \oplus (0, 1)$$

Why we say these are 16 terms and how to descompose ##2(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})## in the vector ## \bar{\Psi}\gamma^{\mu}\Psi ## and pseudovector ## \bar{\Psi}\gamma^5 \gamma^{\mu}\Psi ## ?
 
May I suggest supplimenting whatever you're reading with Wu Ki Tung's group theory for physicists book? It explains things nicely. Miller's book is more detailed (especially on the Clebsch-Gordan theorem), but more intricate. Why are there 16 terms in a basis ? The representation space of the product representation is the tensor product of the 2 spaces. How do you compute dimensions?
 
Last edited:
## dim ( D \otimes D) = dim (D) .dim (D) ## ?
 
Bingo, so if the direct sum of 2 elementary Weyl spinors has dimension 4, what's the dimension of the product of 2 such direct sums?
 
16. I missunderstood the dimensions and terms... Thank you for clarification.

Do you know how to descompose the ##2(1/2, 1/2)## as I stated in the official post?
 
Breo said:
I asked this to eventually understand the next decomposition. If we take the tensor product of 2 spinors ## \Psi\Psi* ##:

$$[(\frac{1}{2}, 0 ) \oplus (0, \frac{1}{2})] \otimes [(\frac{1}{2}, 0 ) \oplus (0, \frac{1}{2})] = 2(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}) \oplus (1,0) \oplus 2(0, 0 ) \oplus (0, 1)$$
The LHS of this equation is the vector space [itex]S \otimes \bar{ S }[/itex] of all 16-component vectors of the form [itex]\psi \otimes \bar{ \psi }[/itex]. We can also take this “vector” to be the [itex]4 \times 4[/itex] matrix (of fields on [itex]M^{ ( 1 , 3 ) }[/itex]) [itex]\psi_{ a } \bar{ \psi }_{ b }[/itex] formed by the following direct product
[tex] \psi \otimes \bar{ \psi } = \left( \begin{array} {c} \psi_{1} \\ \psi_{2} \\ \psi_{3} \\ \psi_{4} \end{array} \right) \otimes \left( \psi_{ 1 }^{ * } , \ \psi_{ 2 }^{ * } , \ - \psi_{ 3 }^{ * } , \ - \psi_{ 4 }^{ * } \right) .[/tex]
Or
[tex] \psi \otimes \bar{ \psi } = \left( \begin {array} {c c c c}<br /> ( \psi_{ 1 } \psi_{ 1 }^{ * } ) & ( \psi_{ 1 } \psi_{ 2 }^{ * } ) & ( - \psi_{ 1 } \psi_{ 3 }^{ * } ) & ( - \psi_{ 1 } \psi_{ 4 }^{ * } ) \\<br /> ( \psi_{ 2 } \psi_{ 1 }^{ * } ) & ( \psi_{ 2 } \psi_{ 2 }^{ * } ) & ( - \psi_{ 2 } \psi_{ 3 }^{ * } ) & ( - \psi_{ 2 } \psi_{ 4 }^{ * } ) \\<br /> ( \psi_{ 3 } \psi_{ 1 }^{ * } ) & ( \psi_{ 3 } \psi_{ 2 }^{ * } ) & ( - \psi_{ 3 } \psi_{ 3 }^{ * } ) & ( - \psi_{ 3 } \psi_{ 4 }^{ * } ) \\<br /> ( \psi_{ 4 } \psi_{ 1 }^{ * } ) & ( \psi_{ 4 } \psi_{ 2 }^{ * } ) & ( - \psi_{ 4 } \psi_{ 3 }^{ * } ) & ( - \psi_{ 4 } \psi_{ 4 }^{ * } )<br /> \end {array} \right) .[/tex]
But any [itex]4 \times 4[/itex] matrix can be expanded in the standard (complete) basis of Clifford algebra [itex]\mathcal{ C }_{ ( 1 , 3 ) } ( \mathbb{ C } )[/itex]:
[tex] \Gamma^{ A } = \{ I_{4 \times 4} , \gamma^{ \mu } , \gamma^{ \mu } \gamma_{ 5 } , \sigma^{ \mu \nu } , \gamma_{ 5 } \} ,[/tex]
where [itex]A = 1 , 2 , \cdots , 16[/itex]. So, we can write
[tex] \psi \otimes \bar{ \psi } = \sum_{ A = 1 }^{ 16 } a_{ A } \ \Gamma^{ A } . \ \ \ \ (1)[/tex]
To find the coefficients [itex]a_{ A }[/itex] we use the trace properties of [itex]\Gamma^{ A }[/itex]: [tex]\mbox{ Tr } ( \Gamma^{ A } ) = 0 , \ \mbox{for} \ \Gamma^{ A } \neq I ,[/tex]
[tex]\mbox{ Tr } ( \Gamma^{ A } ) = 4 , \mbox{for} \ \Gamma^{ A } = I ,[/tex]
and
[tex]\mbox{ Tr } ( \Gamma_{ B } \Gamma^{ A } ) \sim 2^{ 2 } \delta^{ A }_{ B } .[/tex]
So, multiplying Eq(1) with [itex]\Gamma_{ B }[/itex] and taking the trace, we find
[tex] \mbox{ Tr } ( \Gamma_{ B } \psi \otimes \bar{ \psi } ) = a_{ I } \mbox{ Tr } ( \Gamma_{ B } ) + \sum_{ \Gamma^{ R } \neq I } a_{ R } \mbox{ Tr } ( \Gamma_{ B } \Gamma^{ R } ) . \ \ \ (2)[/tex]
For [itex]\Gamma_{ B } = I[/itex], we find
[tex] a_{ I } = \frac{ 1 }{ 4 } \mbox{ Tr } ( \psi \otimes \bar{ \psi } ) = \frac{ 1 }{ 4 } \bar{ \psi } \psi .[/tex]
For [itex]\Gamma_{ B } \neq I[/itex], Eq(2) gives
[tex] \mbox{ Tr } ( \Gamma_{ B } \psi \otimes \bar{ \psi } ) = 0 + \sum_{ \Gamma^{ R } \neq I } a_{ R } \mbox{ Tr } ( \Gamma_{ B } \Gamma^{ R } ) \sim 2^{ 2 } a_{ B } .[/tex]
Thus
[tex] a_{ B } \sim \frac{ 1 }{ 4 } ( \Gamma_{ B } )_{ a b } ( \psi \otimes \bar{ \psi } )_{ b a } = \frac{ 1 }{ 4 } \bar{ \psi }_{ a } ( \Gamma_{ B } )_{ a b } \psi_{ b } = \frac{ 1 }{ 4 } \bar{ \psi }_{ a } \Gamma_{ B } \psi .[/tex]
So, our expansion Eq(1) becomes
[tex] \psi \otimes \bar{ \psi } = \frac{ 1 }{ 4 } ( \bar{ \psi } \psi ) \ I + \frac{ c }{ 4 } \sum_{ \Gamma^{ B } \neq I } ( \bar{ \psi } \Gamma^{ B } \psi ) \Gamma_{ B } ,[/tex]
where [itex]c[/itex] is a constant whose value depends on the definitions of [itex]\gamma_{5}[/itex] and [itex]\sigma^{ \mu \nu }[/itex] and on the signature of the spacetime metric.
From this it follows that
[tex] \bar{ \psi } \psi + \bar{ \psi } \gamma_{ 5 } \psi \ \in ( 0 , 0 ) \oplus ( 0 , 0 ) , \mbox{ dim } : \ [1] \oplus [1] ,[/tex]
[tex] \bar{ \psi } \gamma^{ \mu } \psi + \bar{ \psi } \gamma^{ \mu } \gamma_{ 5 } \psi \ \in ( 1/2 , 1/2 ) \oplus ( 1/2 , 1/2 ) \sim [4] \oplus [4] ,[/tex]
and
[tex] \bar{ \psi } \sigma^{ \mu \nu } \psi \ \in ( 1 , 0 ) \oplus ( 0 , 1 ) \sim [6] .[/tex]
So, going back to the vector space [itex]S \otimes \bar{ S }[/itex], we can say that the [itex]16 \times 16[/itex] matrices which act naturally on the 16-component “vector” [itex]\psi \otimes \bar{ \psi } \in S \otimes \bar{ S }[/itex] can be brought into block diagonal form with matrices of dimensions [itex][1] , [1] , [4] , [4][/itex] and [itex][6][/itex] on the diagonal.
Why we say these are 16 terms and how to descompose ##2(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})## in the vector ## \bar{\Psi}\gamma^{\mu}\Psi ## and pseudovector ## \bar{\Psi}\gamma^5 \gamma^{\mu}\Psi ## ?
You need to spend more time on group theory in general and the representation theory of Lorentz algebra in particular.

Sam
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby, Breo and ChrisVer
  • #10
Thank you very much.

Yes, I have started to studying theoretical physics this year. I have a lack of many "basic" things but I am trying to solving them :).

Indeed, I have one when reading you: where can I learn the properties of the traces? I know is the summ of the diagonal terms of a matrix but I do not figure out when I see some of his uses. Maybe if you could tell me why do you can used it in your derivation...
 
  • #11
Which traces derivation?
The [itex]\gamma^\mu[/itex] are traceless matrices, so are the [itex]\gamma_5[/itex]
Then [itex]\gamma^\mu \gamma_5[/itex] are also traceless, take eg at some particular representation (Weyl):
[itex]\gamma^\mu= \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \sigma^\mu \\ \bar{\sigma}^\mu & 0 \end{pmatrix}, ~~ \gamma_5 = \begin{pmatrix} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}[/itex]
with [itex]\sigma^\mu = (1, \vec{\sigma}), ~~\bar{\sigma}^\mu = (1, -\vec{\sigma})[/itex]

Take the product:

[itex]\gamma^\mu \gamma_5= \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \sigma^\mu \\ \bar{\sigma}^\mu & 0 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}= \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \sigma^\mu \\ -\bar{\sigma}^\mu & 0 \end{pmatrix}[/itex]

Is still traceless. Of course using the anticommutation relations can also give you this answer (so it's a result of the algebra).
[itex]Tr(\gamma^\mu \gamma_5)= Tr (\gamma_5 \gamma^\mu)= -Tr(\gamma^\mu \gamma_5) \Rightarrow Tr(\gamma^\mu \gamma_5)=0[/itex]

Where I used at first [itex]Tr(AB)=Tr(BA)[/itex] and then [itex]\left \{ \gamma_5, \gamma^\mu \right \}=0[/itex].

For the [itex]\sigma^{\mu \nu} \equiv \frac{i}{2}[\gamma^\mu,\gamma^\nu][/itex]
Well, since it's a commutor it's traceless...

[itex]Tr(\sigma^{\mu \nu}) \sim Tr(\gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu)-Tr(\gamma^\nu \gamma^\mu) =Tr(\gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu)-Tr(\gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu)=0[/itex]

Where I used the trace property [itex]Tr(AB)=Tr(BA)[/itex]

The rest is in a complete analogy with what you do for the 2x2 complex matrices with a basis [itex]\Gamma^A = \left \{ 1, \sigma^i \right \}[/itex] and when you write a general matrix:

[itex]M= \sum_B a_B \Gamma^B[/itex]

and want to find the coefficients [itex]a_B[/itex].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_matrices#Completeness_relation

The even more simple form is what you do to find the coeffecients for a vector in some basis.
[itex]\vec{v}= a_i x^i[/itex]
where you take the inner product with the basis vectors (the analogy to this is seen after you realize that the inner product is a scalar, as is the trace of a matrix)
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Just as expected, samalkhaiat writes a stunning reply. :) Bravo!
 
  • #13
dextercioby said:
Just as expected, samalkhaiat writes a stunning reply. :) Bravo!

Thanks, it is always a pleasure to help someone understand something. Also, it is fun to do.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K