String Theory-Virasoro Generators -- show commutator relation

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the commutation relations in string theory, specifically focusing on the Virasoro generators and the operators involved. The original poster presents a problem involving the commutator of the operators ##\alpha_n^u## and the Virasoro generator ##L_m##, aiming to demonstrate a specific relation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the application of commutator relations and attempt to manipulate the expressions involving the operators. There is a focus on the correct usage of indices and the implications of normal ordering.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants questioning the correctness of the initial commutator relation provided by the original poster. Some participants suggest alternative approaches and highlight potential issues with index usage, indicating a productive exploration of the problem.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of confusion regarding the notation and the proper application of commutation relations, particularly concerning the indices used for the operators. The original poster's attempts are noted as potentially flawed, prompting further clarification from other participants.

binbagsss
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
12

Homework Statement



(I have dropped the hats on the ##\alpha_{n}^{u}## operators and ##L_{m}##)

##[\alpha_{n}^u, \alpha_m^v]=n\delta_{n+m}\eta^{uv}##
##L_m=\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} : \alpha_{m-n}^u\alpha_{n}^v: \eta_{uv}-\delta_{m,0}##

where : denotes normal-ordered.

Show that : ##[\alpha_{m}^u,L_n]=m\alpha_{m+n}^u##

Homework Equations



see above

The Attempt at a Solution



For a given ##n## we are looking at the following commutator: ##[\alpha_m,\alpha_{n-m}\alpha_m]##

to use commutator relation:

##[a,bc]=-a[b,c]-[a,c]b##

##a= \alpha_m##
##b= \alpha_{n-m}##
##c= \alpha_m ##

##[a,c]=0##
##[b,c]=(n-m)\delta_{n=0}\eta^{uv}## using (1)

##\implies [\alpha_{m}^u,L_n]=\alpha_m^u(m)\eta^{uv} ## which is wrong...

thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bump please. many thanks in advance, very grateful.
 
The commutator relation you've written down is wrong.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: binbagsss
king vitamin said:
The commutator relation you've written down is wrong.

Sorry to re-bump an old thread but I thought it would be a waste to start a new one.
I think I understood this at the time but right now I am not getting it.
Why is the commutator relation wrong?

Let me instead use:

##[a,bc]=[a,b]c+b[a,c]##

##a=\alpha_m##
##b=\alpha_{n-m}##
##c=\alpha_m##

##[\alpha_m, \alpha_{n-m}]\alpha_m + \alpha_{m-n}[\alpha_m,\alpha_m] = m\delta_n \eta^{uv}\alpha_m + m\delta_{2m}\eta^{uv}##

which is wrong..
 
You shouldn't use the same index m for both the \alpha_m and the summed index in the definition of L_n.

So using the (now correct) relation

[a,bc] = [a,b]c + b[a,c]

with

<br /> a = \alpha_m^u \\<br /> <br /> b = \alpha_{n-k}^{\nu} \\<br /> <br /> c = \alpha_k^{\alpha}<br />

you should get the correct answer after contracting with \eta_{\nu \alpha}.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: binbagsss

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K