Wigner's little group, massless case

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mesmerized
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Group Massless
Mesmerized
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I'm reading Weinberg's vol.1 on Quantum Theory of Fields and stuck on the following problem. In the massless case Wigner's little group is the group of Lorentz transformations that keep the vector (0,0,1,1) invariant. (I'm going with Wigner's notations, where the vector is denoted (z,y,x,t) and the metric tesor has (1,1,1,-1) on the main diagonal). He shows, that all the matrices that keep (0,0,1,1) invariant are of the form S(\alpha,\beta)R(\theta), where R are rotations around z axis and the S matrix has the following form
<br /> S^\mu~_\nu(\alpha,\beta) = <br /> <br /> \begin{bmatrix}<br /> 1 &amp; 0 &amp; -\alpha &amp; \alpha\\<br /> 0 &amp; 1 &amp; -\beta &amp; \beta\\<br /> \alpha &amp; \beta &amp; 1-\zeta &amp; \zeta\\<br /> \alpha &amp; \beta &amp; -\zeta &amp; 1+\zeta\\<br /> \end{bmatrix},<br /> \\<br />
Then he says that R and S separately are Abelian subgroups of the little group
R(\theta_1)R(\theta_2)=R(\theta_1+\theta_2)\\<br /> S(\alpha_1,\beta_1)S(\alpha_2,\beta_2)=S(\alpha_1+\alpha_2,\beta_1+\beta_2)
and S is also an invariant subgroup
R(\theta)S(\alpha,\beta)R^{-1}(\theta)=S(\alpha\cos\theta+\beta\sin\theta,-\alpha\sin\theta+\beta\cos\theta)
From these relations he concludes that the S subgroup represents the translations which seems logical.

My question is: translations in which plane? I assume that a general translation should act on a 4-vector as: TX=(X+a), where 'X' and 'a' are 4-vectors, 'T' is the translation operator. With the S matrix above I can see that it keeps (0,0,1,1) vector invariant, but can't see how it is a translation. I can't find a particular vector on which it will act as SX=(X+a).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello Mesmerized! :smile:
Mesmerized said:
From these relations he concludes that the S subgroup represents the translations which seems logical.

no, he says (bottom of page 70) …
The reader will recognise these multiplication rules as those of the group ISO(2), consisting of translations … and rotations … in two dimensions.​

… he's simply pointing out a familiar version of the same group!

if you want a "physical" representation, it would be to plot all possible rays of light onto a 3D "graph" in which direction is represented in the usual way, but distance represents the log of red-shift …

so the line in a particular direction represents all possible frequencies of light in that direction …

and a lorentz transformation of rapidity α in say the x-direction increases the frequency of every ray in the x-direction by eα (in actual space), corresponding simply to a translation by α along the x-direction in the "graph" …

then the little group (leaving the z-direction invariant) consists of all redshifts in the x-y plane, and rotations in the x-y plane :smile:
 
thank you for such a detailed answer.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...

Similar threads

Back
Top