Following up on this question: Weinberg says
In general, it may be possible by using suitable linear combinations of the ψp,σ to choose the σ labels in such a way that Cσ′σ(Λ,p) is block-diagonal; in other words, so that the ψp,σ with σ within any one block by themselves furnish a representation of the inhomogenous Lorentz group.
But why inhomogeneous Lorentz group if, in the first place, we performed a homogeneous Lorentz transformation on the states, via U(Λ)? I also want to be clear what is meant by the states "furnishing" a representation.
Regarding the above confusion, the same scenario again shows up during the discussion on the little group. Here's a little background: k is a "standard" 4-momentum, so that we can express any arbitrary 4-momentum p as pμ=Lμν(p)kν, where L is a Lorentz transformation dependent on p. We consider the subgroup of Lorentz transformations W that leave k invariant (little group), and find that:
U(W)ψkσ=∑σ′Dσ′σ(W)ψkσ′. Then he says:
The coefficients D(W) furnish a representation of the little group; i.e., for any elements W and W′ , we get Dσ′σ(W′W)=∑σ″.
So is it that even in the first part about the Lorentz group, C matrices furnish the representation and not \psi?
Also, for the very simplified case if C_{\sigma'\sigma}(\Lambda, p) is completely diagonal, would I be correct in saying the following in such a case, for any \sigma?
U(\Lambda)\psi_{p,\sigma} = k_{\sigma}(\Lambda, p)\psi_{\Lambda p, \sigma}
Only in this case it is clear to me that U(\Lambda) forms a representation of Lorentz group, since \psi_{p,\sigma} are mapped to \psi_{\Lambda p, \sigma}.
No comments:
Post a Comment