Weinberg Lectures on QM (2013 ed.), Equation 3.6.18

  • Thread starter jouvelot
  • Start date
49
1
Hi,

I don't get how one goes from 3.6.17 to 3.6.18 on Page 80 (Galilean invariance) regarding the zeroing of boost generator commutators. I do get that this is a special case of the Lorentz invariance (which I understand), but this particular step eludes me.

Thanks for your help.
 

vanhees71

Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
13,317
5,248
This is about Galileo invariance. In the case of Lorentz invariance two boosts, if not in the same direction, do NOT commute!

Here you have
$$\hat{U}(\vec{v}) \hat{U}(\vec{v}')=\hat{U}(\vec{v}) \hat{U}(\vec{v}')=\hat{U}(\vec{v}+\vec{v}')$$
for all ##\vec{v} \in \mathbb{R}^3##. Expanding
$$\hat{U}(\vec{v})=\exp(-\mathrm{i} \vec{v} \cdot \hat{\vec{K}})$$
of both transformations up to 1st order in ##\vec{v}## you get
$$[\hat{K}_i,\hat{K}_j]=0.$$
 
49
1
Hi,

Thanks for your fast relay :)

Indeed, I get this, but if you actually try to use infinitesimal definitions of $$U(v)$$ as $$1 -ivK + O(v^2),$$ as suggested in Weinberg's book, and do the very simple math in $$U(v)U(v') = U(v+v'),$$I don't see how this forces the commutator to become 0.

Thanks.
 
487
188
What you use is the following

$$U(\vec{v})U(\vec{v}^\prime) =U(\vec{v}+\vec{v}^\prime) = U(\vec{v}^\prime+\vec{v}) = U(\vec{v}^\prime)U(\vec{v})$$

In other words, Galilei boosts commute.

You can write this as ##\left[ U(\vec{v}), U(\vec{v}^\prime)\right] = 0##.
By expanding ##U(\vec{v}) = \mathbf{1}-i\vec{v}\cdot \vec{K} + O(v^2)## and inserting that into the commutator you should get there.
 
49
1
Hi,

I see. Usually, for instance with Equation 3.6.19, you can actually get the value of the commutator as a consequence of replacing the infinitesimal unitary operator in the invariance constraint (Equation 3.6.16).

In 3.6.18, when one actually does the expansion of the multiplication of the two infinitesimal boosts in the constraint ##U(v)U(v') = U(v+v')##, the last factor is in fact ##O(v^2)##, and can thus be neglected, yielding 0 and validating the constraint. The value of the commutator is not a direct consequence, though.

Thanks.
 
487
188
I don't quite get what you're telling. But let me show what I did.

$$
\begin{align*}
0 &= [U(\vec{v}),U(\vec{v}^\prime)]\\
&= \left[ \mathbf{1}-i\left( \vec{v}+\vec{v}^\prime\right) \cdot\vec{K} - \left(\vec{v}\cdot \vec{K}\right) \left(\vec{v}^\prime\cdot \vec{K}\right) + \ldots \right]\\ &- \left[ \mathbf{1}-i\left( \vec{v}+\vec{v}^\prime\right) \cdot\vec{K} - \left(\vec{v}^\prime\cdot \vec{K}\right) \left(\vec{v}\cdot \vec{K}\right) + \ldots \right]\\
&= \sum_{i,j}v_iv_j^\prime [K_i,K_j]
\end{align*}
$$

Since this holds for all vectors ##\vec{v}## and ##\vec{v}^\prime## it follows that the commutators should vanish.
 
49
1
Yes, because you know that the commutator of two general U(v) translations is 0 and subsequently proved that this implies the generators have to commute.

What I was doing was simply replacing ##U(v)## and ##U(v')## in the constraint $$U(v)U(v') = U(v+v')$$ with their infinitesimal definitions, hoping to get that this constraint is true only if a particular condition is verified, which I hoped would be the fact that ##[K,K'] = 0##. But this doesn't work that way here, it seems, contrarily to the other cases that appear before in the book.

Thanks a lot for for explanation and the time taken :)
 

Related Threads for: Weinberg Lectures on QM (2013 ed.), Equation 3.6.18

Replies
2
Views
543
Replies
6
Views
776
Replies
1
Views
729
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Posted
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
787
Replies
2
Views
675

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top