Unexpected result on Lorentz transformation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the unexpected results encountered when applying the Lorentz transformation using the (1/2, 1/2) representation of the Lorentz group. The participant calculated the Lorentz generators, leading to the conclusion that boosts cannot be performed, which contradicts established physics. The transformation results matched those of a Lorentz boost along the z-direction, raising questions about the representation used. The correct representation is suggested to be either (1/2, 0) or (0, 1/2), necessitating further investigation into standard conventions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lorentz transformations and their mathematical representations
  • Familiarity with SU(2) algebra and its generators
  • Knowledge of Pauli matrices and their applications in quantum mechanics
  • Basic concepts of quantum field theory (QFT) and group theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the representations of the Lorentz group, focusing on (1/2, 0) and (0, 1/2)
  • Study the implications of SU(2) algebra in quantum mechanics and its physical interpretations
  • Examine the appendix B of the provided QFT lecture notes for detailed insights
  • Explore the mathematical derivation of Lorentz boosts and their applications in relativistic physics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, particularly those specializing in quantum field theory, theoretical physicists, and students seeking to deepen their understanding of Lorentz transformations and group representations.

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   Reactions: 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.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K