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
4,851 answers , 20,616 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
501 active unimported users
More ...

Axioms for Euclidean Green's functions's paper by Osterwalder and Schrader 2.

+ 4 like - 0 dislike
134 views

I have another question from the following text:

https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cmp/1103858969

On page 91, they define $\hat{T}^t$, and I don't see how did they get (4.7).

I mean if I write it down I get:

$$(f,\hat{T}^tg) = \sum \sigma_{n+m} (\Theta f^*)_n \times (\hat{T}^t g)_m) =  \sum \sigma_{n+m}(\Theta f^*_n \times (g_{(t,1)})_m)$$

Now, by (E1) we get:

$$= \sum \sigma_{n+m}((\Theta f^*_{(-t,1)})_n \times g_m)$$

Now, the $\Theta$ is time inversion, i.e we should get:

$$= \sum \sigma_{n+m}((f^*_{(t,1)})_n\times g_m) = \sum \sigma_{n+m}((\hat{T}^tf^*)_n\times g_m)$$

But on the last equality we should have that it 's equal: $\sum \sigma_{n+m}(\Theta (\hat{T}^t f)^*)_n \times g_m)$, but I don't get it.

Can you help me on this?

asked Jul 23, 2015 in Mathematics by MathematicalPhysicist (120 points) [ no revision ]

1 Answer

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

Remember you have to worry about the temporal inversion by \(\theta\) now. I think it is easiest to see this by explicitly writing it out as seen on page 87.

\[(\theta f)_n (x_1,...,x_n) = f_n(\theta x_1,...,\theta x_n)\] where \(\theta x = (-x^0 , \vec{x})\)

now remember by definition we have \(f_{(a,\mathbf{R})}(x_1,...,x_n)= f(\mathbf{R}x_1 + a,...,\mathbf{R}x_n + a)\) and (E1) states that the Euclidean Green function is invariant under SO(4) rotations and translations (as stated in your previous question).

Using your notation we have

\((f,\hat{T}^tg) = \sum \sigma_{n+m} (\Theta f^*)_n \times (\hat{T}^t g)_m) = \sum \sigma_{n+m}(\Theta f^*_n \times (g_{(-t,1)})_m)\)

Notice the minus sign on the t, for that is how they define the map, \((\hat{T}^t f)_n (x_1,...,x_n) = f_n(x_1 - t,...,x_n - t)\) where \(t = (t,\vec{0})\)

Now explicitly writing out your expression above we have

\[= \sum \sigma_{n+m}(f^*_n(\theta x_1,...,\theta x_n) \times g_m(x_1 - t,..., x_n-t))\]

We then shift the whole thing by a factor of t, giving us

\[= \sum \sigma_{n+m}(f^*_n(\theta x_1+t,...,\theta x_n+t) \times g_m(x_1 ,..., x_n))\]

\[= \sum \sigma_{n+m}(f^*_n(\theta x_1- \theta t,...,\theta x_n-\theta t) \times g_m(x_1 ,..., x_n))\]

\[= \sum \sigma_{n+m}(\theta f^*_n( x_1- t,..., x_n- t) \times g_m(x_1 ,..., x_n))\]

\[= \sum \sigma_{n+m}(\theta (\hat{T}^t f)^*_n( x_1,..., x_n) \times g_m(x_1 ,..., x_n))\]

Where in the second line we used the fact that t is a purely temporal vector. This gives the result you are looking for in equation (4.7)

answered Jul 27, 2015 by Peter Anderson (205 points) [ no revision ]

@PeterAnderson There must be a typo here or in the article, since in the article $(U_s(a)f)_n(x_1,\ldots, x_n) = f_n(x_1-a,\ldots , x_n - a)$, where $a=(0,\vec{a})$, and also $(T^tf)_n (x_1,\ldots , x_n)=f_n(x_1-t,\ldots , x_n-t)$, where $t=(t,\vec{0})$.

In your answer to my previous question in the post called:Axioms for Euclidean Green's functions's paper by Osterwalder and Schrader you wrote:

$(U_s(a)f)_n(x_1,\ldots , x_n) = f_n(x_1+a , \ldots , x_n+a)$ even though that's not how it's written in the text, so you say there must be a typo? (It's all on page 91 of the article).

@MathematicalPhysicist It seems I just missed that fact the first time. I updated the previous answer to align accordingly. Since it is just a definition it doesn't actually affect anything, besides just having a minus sign that needed to be carried through out. Thanks for catching that!

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$\hbar$ysicsOverflo$\varnothing$
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
...