Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,848 answers , 20,603 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
501 active unimported users
More ...

How does the Lorentz group act on a 4-vector in the spinor-helicity formalism $p_{\alpha\dot{\alpha}}$?

+ 2 like - 0 dislike
542 views

Given a 4-vector $p^\mu$ the Lorentz group acts on it in the vector representation: $$ \tag{1} p^\mu \longrightarrow (J_V[\Lambda])^\mu_{\,\,\nu} p^\nu\equiv \Lambda^\mu_{\,\,\nu} p^\nu. $$ However, I can always represent a 4-vector $p^\mu$ using left and right handed spinor indices, writing $$ \tag{2} p_{\alpha \dot{\alpha}} \equiv \sigma^\mu_{\alpha \dot{\alpha}} p_\mu.$$ So the question is: in what representation does the Lorentz group act on $p_{\alpha \dot{\alpha}}$?


There are a lot of questions about this and related topics around physics.se, with a lot of excellent answers, so let me clear up more specifically what I am asking for.

I already know that the answer to this question is that the transformation law is $$ \tag{3} p_{\alpha \dot{\alpha}} \rightarrow (A p A^\dagger)_{\alpha\dot{\alpha}}$$ with $A \in SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ (how is mentioned for example in this answer by Andrew McAddams). I also understand that $$ \tag{4} \mathfrak{so}(1,3) \cong \mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C}),$$ (which is explained for example here by Edward Hughes, here by joshphysics, here by Qmechanic).

So what is missing? Not much really. Two things:

  1. How do I obtain (3) and what is the specific form of $A$, i.e. its relation with the vector representation $\Lambda^\mu_{\,\,\nu}$? Defining the following $$ (\tilde p) \equiv p^\mu, \qquad \Lambda \equiv \Lambda^\mu_{\,\,\nu},$$ $$ \sigma \equiv \sigma_{\alpha \dot \alpha}, \qquad \hat p \equiv p_{\alpha \dot \alpha},$$ we can rewrite (1) and (2) in matrix form as $$ \tag{5} \hat p \equiv \sigma \tilde p \rightarrow \sigma \Lambda \tilde p = ( \sigma \Lambda \sigma^{-1}) \hat p,$$ however, this disagrees with (3) which I know to be right, so what is wrong with my reasoning?

  2. Why does the transformation law (3) has a form $$\tag{6} A \rightarrow U^{-1} A U,$$ while the usual vector transformation (1) has a form $V \rightarrow \Lambda V$? I suspect this comes from a similar reason to that explained here by Prahar, but I would appreciate a confirmation about this.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-01-13 11:51 (UTC), posted by SE-user glance
asked Jan 12, 2015 in Theoretical Physics by glance (65 points) [ no revision ]
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/28505/2451 and links therein.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-01-13 11:51 (UTC), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
@Qmechanic I edited the question to better specify my problem

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-01-13 11:51 (UTC), posted by SE-user glance
The question (v2) seems closely related to physics.stackexchange.com/q/153736/2451

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-01-13 11:51 (UTC), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
@Qmechanic I already saw it and I agree. Unfortunately there are no answers there.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-01-13 11:51 (UTC), posted by SE-user glance

1 Answer

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

Your equation (3) comes from the following steps. First, a dotted index transforms in the complex conjugate representation of an undotted index. For a tensor product, each index transforms according to its own representation. Thus $$p_{a\dot a} \mapsto A_{ab} \bar A_{\dot a \dot b} p_{b\dot b} = A_{ab} p_{b\dot b} A^\dagger_{\dot b \dot a}$$ where on the left side of the equal sign we have elementwise complex conjugation. Putting the conjugate matrix on the right we have to take a transpose to get order of indices right.

In reasoning about (4) and (5) you are neglecting the transformation of $\sigma^\mu_{a\dot a}$. The correct description of the relation $p_{a\dot a} = \sigma^\mu_{a\dot a} p_\mu$ is that the 4-vector representation is equivalent to the $(\frac 1 2,0)\otimes(0,\frac 1 2)$ representation, by means of the linear transformation $$\sigma^\mu_{a \dot a} : V\to (\frac12,0)\otimes(0,\frac12)$$ meaning that $\sigma^\mu_{a\dot a}$ belongs to the space $(\frac 1 2,0)\otimes (0,\frac12) \otimes V^*$, on which the (double cover of the) Lorentz group acts. In fact, it acts like $$\sigma^\mu_{a\dot a} \mapsto A_{a\dot b} \sigma^\nu_{b\dot b} A^\dagger_{\dot b \dot a} (\Lambda^{-1})_\nu^\mu $$ so that $A^\mu_{a \dot a} p_\mu$ indeed has the correct transformation law.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-01-13 11:51 (UTC), posted by SE-user Robin Ekman
answered Jan 12, 2015 by Robin Ekman (215 points) [ no revision ]
Thank you very much, that definitely sorted it out. Just one thing: could you also provide some reference where I can find more on the subject (particulary where I can find an exposition of the transformation rules of $\sigma^\mu_{\,\,\alpha\dot \alpha}$ that you quoted)?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-01-13 11:51 (UTC), posted by SE-user glance
That $\sigma^\mu_{a \dot a}$ transforms in that manner is really implicit in the indices it has, so I don't know if it's written out anywhere. My best guess is Penrose & Rindler, but I haven't checked.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-01-13 11:51 (UTC), posted by SE-user Robin Ekman

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$y$\varnothing$icsOverflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...