Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

On page 54 of Weinberg's QFT I, he says that an element $T(\theta)$ of a connected Lie group can be represented by a unitary operator $U(T(\theta))$ acting on the physical Hilbert space. Near the identity, he says that

$U(T(\theta)) = 1 + i\theta^a t_a + \frac{1}{2}\theta^a\theta^bt_{ab} + ...$

Weinberg then states that $t_a$, $t_{ab}$, ... are Hermitian. I can see why $t_a$ must be by expanding to order $\mathcal{O}(\theta)$ and invoking unitarity. However, expanding to $\mathcal{O}(\theta^2)$ gives

$t_at_b = \frac{1}{2}(t_{ab} + t^\dagger_{ab})$,

so it seems the same reasoning cannot be used to show that $t_{ab}$ is Hermitian. Why, then, is it?


share|cite|improve this question

I) OP's last equation(v1) is not correct. If

$$\tag{2.2.17} U ~=~ {\bf 1} + i\theta^a t_a + \frac{1}{2}\theta^a\theta^b t_{ab} + {\cal O}(\theta^3), \qquad \theta^a \in \mathbb{R},\qquad t_{ab}~=~t_{ba}, \qquad $$

then the unitarity condition

$$U^{\dagger}U~=~{\bf 1}~=~UU^{\dagger}$$

yields to second order in $\theta$ that

$$ t^{\dagger}_a~=~t_a, $$


$$ t^{\dagger}_{ab}+t_{ab}+\{t_a,t_b\}~=~0. $$

II) However, in fact

$$U~=~e^{i\theta^a t_a}~=~{\bf 1} + i\theta^a t_a -\frac{1}{4}\theta^a\theta^b \{t_a,t_b\}+ {\cal O}(\theta^3),$$

so that the generator

$$ t_{ab} ~=~-\frac{1}{2}\{t_a,t_b\}~=~t^{\dagger}_{ab} $$

is indeed Hermitian as Weinberg claims.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.