I Unexpected result on Lorentz transformation

Tio Barnabe
The generators ##N^{\pm}{}_\mu = \frac{1}{2}(J_\mu \pm iK_\mu)## obey the algebra of ##SU(2)##. On the RHS we see the Lorentz generators of rotations and boosts, respectively.

I considered the case where ##N^{\pm}{}_\mu = (1/2) \sigma_\mu##, i.e. the (1/2, 1/2) representation of the Lorentz group, where ##\sigma_\mu## are the 2x2 Pauli matrices.

Substitution into the equation above for ##N^{\pm}{}_\mu## leads to ##J_\mu = \sigma_\mu; \ K_\mu = 0##. I didn't like this result, since it seems to indicate that boosts can't be done.

Never the less, I procceded to the calculation of ##J_3 = \sigma_3##. I got the result $$\exp(J_3 \theta) = \exp(\sigma_3 \theta) = \begin{pmatrix}\cosh \theta + \sinh \theta&0\\0&\cosh \theta - \sinh \theta\end{pmatrix}$$
When operating with this matrix on an arbritary matrix $$V = v_0 \bf{1} + \sum_i v_i \sigma_i$$ [which (I think) is the most general matrix on the space in question, because it's a 2x2 hermitian matrix, and thus will satisfy the conditions for ##SU(2)##.]

I get for the transformed components ##v_i## exactly the same result I get for a Lorentz boost of a Lorentz four-vector along the 3-direction (z-direction), i.e., $$\begin{pmatrix}\cosh \theta&0&0&\sinh \theta\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\\sinh \theta&0&0&\cosh \theta\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}v_0\\v_1\\v_2\\v_3\end{pmatrix}$$

This is too strange to be correct. What am I missing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are on the right track, but what you consider is not the representation (1/2,1/2) but one of the representations (1/2,0) or (0,1/2) (I'd have to check the standard conventions to figure out which one it specifically is).

For a detailed review of the representations of the Lorentz (and Poincare) groups, see appendix B in my QFT lecture notes:

https://th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/publ/lect.pdf
 
  • Like
Likes Tio Barnabe and jerromyjon
Thank you

I'm sorry to say that I read your appendix B and tried to apply the value ##1/2## to ##k## and ##k'##, but I'm still getting the same results as in post #1.
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
According to the General Theory of Relativity, time does not pass on a black hole, which means that processes they don't work either. As the object becomes heavier, the speed of matter falling on it for an observer on Earth will first increase, and then slow down, due to the effect of time dilation. And then it will stop altogether. As a result, we will not get a black hole, since the critical mass will not be reached. Although the object will continue to attract matter, it will not be a...
Back
Top