Skip to main content
added 459 characters in body
Source Link
Cosmas Zachos
  • 66.3k
  • 6
  • 110
  • 248

For simplicity, I'll deconstruct, backtrack on the unravelling of the symmetry generators of the so(4). I'll consider the so(3) rotation subalgebra; and the three peculiar components of the LRL vector symmetry underlain by the astounding Lie scaling symmetry in which the coordinates r and the time t are scaled by different powers of a parameter λ,

By suitably normalizing the LRL vector to ${\mathbf D}\equiv {\mathbf A}/\sqrt{-2H}$ and unravelling to chiral components, A = L + D , B = L - D , you can show the A s close into an su(2) commuting with the su(2) of the B s. So, then, a total so(4). This, now untwisted, so(4) is a bona-fide symmetry and entirely canonical, and a subgroup of sp(6). That is, for the six parameters a, b, $$\delta {\mathbf q} = \{ {\mathbf q} , {\mathbf a\cdot A}\},\qquad \delta {\mathbf p} = \{ {\mathbf p} , {\mathbf a\cdot A}\} \\ \delta' {\mathbf q} = \{ {\mathbf q} , {\mathbf b\cdot B}\},\qquad \delta '{\mathbf p} = \{ {\mathbf p} , {\mathbf b\cdot B}\} $$ preserve the Poisson brackets, as you may (should) demonstrate by use. (For example, as per your request in the comment, the first order variation of $\{ q^i,p^j \}=\delta^{ij}$ vanishes, $$ \{ \delta q^i,p^j \} + \{ q^i,\delta p^j \} = \{ \{ q^i, {\mathbf a\cdot A}\} \},p^j \} + \{ q^i, \{ p^j,{\mathbf a\cdot A}\} \} \} \\ =-\{ \delta^{ij} , {\mathbf a\cdot A}\} - \{ \{ {\mathbf a\cdot A}\},p^j \}, q^i \} + \{ q^i, \{ p^j,{\mathbf a\cdot A}\} \} \}=0 $$ by the Jacobi identity, and likewise for all other PBs and generators.)

It hardly matters, since Pauli's algebraic maneuver, upon quantization, works just fine, anyway. One never really had to think about canonical transformations, and how motion is a canonical transformation with time as the infinitesimal parameter, and the whole shebang...

For simplicity, I'll deconstruct, backtrack on the unravelling of the symmetry generators of the so(4). I'll consider the so(3) rotation subalgebra; and the three peculiar components of the LRL vector symmetry underlain by the astounding Lie scaling symmetry in which the coordinates r and the time t are scaled by different powers of a parameter λ,

By suitably normalizing the LRL vector to ${\mathbf D}\equiv {\mathbf A}/\sqrt{-2H}$ and unravelling to chiral components, A = L + D , B = L - D , you can show the A s close into an su(2) commuting with the su(2) of the B s. So, then, a total so(4). This, now untwisted, so(4) is a bona-fide symmetry and entirely canonical, and a subgroup of sp(6). That is, for the six parameters a, b, $$\delta {\mathbf q} = \{ {\mathbf q} , {\mathbf a\cdot A}\},\qquad \delta {\mathbf p} = \{ {\mathbf p} , {\mathbf a\cdot A}\} \\ \delta' {\mathbf q} = \{ {\mathbf q} , {\mathbf b\cdot B}\},\qquad \delta '{\mathbf p} = \{ {\mathbf p} , {\mathbf b\cdot B}\} $$ preserve the Poisson brackets, as you may (should) demonstrate by use of the Jacobi identity.

It hardly matters, since Pauli's algebraic maneuver, upon quantization, works just fine, anyway. One never really had to think about canonical transformations...

For simplicity, I'll consider the so(3) rotation subalgebra; and the three peculiar components of the LRL vector symmetry underlain by the astounding Lie scaling symmetry in which the coordinates r and the time t are scaled by different powers of a parameter λ,

By suitably normalizing the LRL vector to ${\mathbf D}\equiv {\mathbf A}/\sqrt{-2H}$ and unravelling to chiral components, A = L + D , B = L - D , you can show the A s close into an su(2) commuting with the su(2) of the B s. So, then, a total so(4). This, now untwisted, so(4) is a bona-fide symmetry and entirely canonical, and a subgroup of sp(6). That is, for the six parameters a, b, $$\delta {\mathbf q} = \{ {\mathbf q} , {\mathbf a\cdot A}\},\qquad \delta {\mathbf p} = \{ {\mathbf p} , {\mathbf a\cdot A}\} \\ \delta' {\mathbf q} = \{ {\mathbf q} , {\mathbf b\cdot B}\},\qquad \delta '{\mathbf p} = \{ {\mathbf p} , {\mathbf b\cdot B}\} $$ preserve the Poisson brackets, as you may (should) demonstrate. (For example, as per your request in the comment, the first order variation of $\{ q^i,p^j \}=\delta^{ij}$ vanishes, $$ \{ \delta q^i,p^j \} + \{ q^i,\delta p^j \} = \{ \{ q^i, {\mathbf a\cdot A}\} \},p^j \} + \{ q^i, \{ p^j,{\mathbf a\cdot A}\} \} \} \\ =-\{ \delta^{ij} , {\mathbf a\cdot A}\} - \{ \{ {\mathbf a\cdot A}\},p^j \}, q^i \} + \{ q^i, \{ p^j,{\mathbf a\cdot A}\} \} \}=0 $$ by the Jacobi identity, and likewise for all other PBs and generators.)

It hardly matters, since Pauli's algebraic maneuver, upon quantization, works just fine, anyway. One never really had to think about canonical transformations, and how motion is a canonical transformation with time as the infinitesimal parameter, and the whole shebang...

added 59 characters in body
Source Link
Cosmas Zachos
  • 66.3k
  • 6
  • 110
  • 248

By suitably normalizing the LRL vector to ${\mathbf D}\equiv \sqrt{-2H}$${\mathbf D}\equiv {\mathbf A}/\sqrt{-2H}$ and unravelling to chiral components, A = L + D , B = L - D , you can show the A s close into an su(2) commuting with the su(2) of the B s. So, then, a total so(4). This, now untwisted, so(4) is a bona-fide symmetry and entirely canonical, and a subgroup of sp(6). That is, for the six parameters a, b, $$\delta {\mathbf q} = \{ {\mathbf q} , {\mathbf a\cdot A}\},\qquad \delta {\mathbf p} = \{ {\mathbf p} , {\mathbf a\cdot A}\} \\ \delta' {\mathbf q} = \{ {\mathbf q} , {\mathbf b\cdot B}\},\qquad \delta '{\mathbf p} = \{ {\mathbf p} , {\mathbf b\cdot B}\} $$ preserve the Poisson brackets, as you may (should) demonstrate by use of the Jacobi identity.

It hardly matters, since Pauli's algebraic maneuver, upon quantization, works just fine, anyway. One never really had to think about canonical transformations.

In conclusion, your connection to the issues of the Physics Forums question appears completely spurious..

  • In conclusion, your connection to the issues of the Physics Forums question appears completely spurious.

By suitably normalizing the LRL vector to ${\mathbf D}\equiv \sqrt{-2H}$ and unravelling to chiral components, A = L + D , B = L - D , you can show the A s close into an su(2) commuting with the su(2) of the B s. So, then, a total so(4). This, now untwisted, so(4) is a bona-fide symmetry and entirely canonical, and a subgroup of sp(6). That is, $$\delta {\mathbf q} = \{ {\mathbf q} , {\mathbf a\cdot A}\},\qquad \delta {\mathbf p} = \{ {\mathbf p} , {\mathbf a\cdot A}\} \\ \delta' {\mathbf q} = \{ {\mathbf q} , {\mathbf b\cdot B}\},\qquad \delta '{\mathbf p} = \{ {\mathbf p} , {\mathbf b\cdot B}\} $$ preserve the Poisson brackets, as you may (should) demonstrate by use of the Jacobi identity.

It hardly matters, since Pauli's algebraic maneuver, upon quantization, works just fine, anyway. One never had to think about canonical transformations.

In conclusion, your connection to the issues of the Physics Forums question appears completely spurious.

By suitably normalizing the LRL vector to ${\mathbf D}\equiv {\mathbf A}/\sqrt{-2H}$ and unravelling to chiral components, A = L + D , B = L - D , you can show the A s close into an su(2) commuting with the su(2) of the B s. So, then, a total so(4). This, now untwisted, so(4) is a bona-fide symmetry and entirely canonical, and a subgroup of sp(6). That is, for the six parameters a, b, $$\delta {\mathbf q} = \{ {\mathbf q} , {\mathbf a\cdot A}\},\qquad \delta {\mathbf p} = \{ {\mathbf p} , {\mathbf a\cdot A}\} \\ \delta' {\mathbf q} = \{ {\mathbf q} , {\mathbf b\cdot B}\},\qquad \delta '{\mathbf p} = \{ {\mathbf p} , {\mathbf b\cdot B}\} $$ preserve the Poisson brackets, as you may (should) demonstrate by use of the Jacobi identity.

It hardly matters, since Pauli's algebraic maneuver, upon quantization, works just fine, anyway. One never really had to think about canonical transformations...

  • In conclusion, your connection to the issues of the Physics Forums question appears completely spurious.
added 1350 characters in body
Source Link
Cosmas Zachos
  • 66.3k
  • 6
  • 110
  • 248

Edit on the edited question:

Phew... your dotty Physics Forums link at last explains your wrong minded attachment to Sp(4,R). The answerer is expounding the symmetry group of harmonic oscillators in 2d, and not the 3d Kepler/hydrogen problem considered here!

By suitably normalizing the LRL vector to ${\mathbf D}\equiv \sqrt{-2H}$ and unravelling to chiral components, A = L + D , B = L - D , you can show the A s close into an su(2) commuting with the su(2) of the B s. So, then, a total so(4). This, now untwisted, so(4) is a bona-fide symmetry and entirely canonical, and a subgroup of sp(6). That is, $$\delta {\mathbf q} = \{ {\mathbf q} , {\mathbf a\cdot A}\},\qquad \delta {\mathbf p} = \{ {\mathbf p} , {\mathbf a\cdot A}\} \\ \delta' {\mathbf q} = \{ {\mathbf q} , {\mathbf b\cdot B}\},\qquad \delta '{\mathbf p} = \{ {\mathbf p} , {\mathbf b\cdot B}\} $$ preserve the Poisson brackets, as you may (should) demonstrate by use of the Jacobi identity.

It hardly matters, since Pauli's algebraic maneuver, upon quantization, works just fine, anyway. One never had to think about canonical transformations.

In conclusion, your connection to the issues of the Physics Forums question appears completely spurious.


Edit on the edited question:

Phew... your dotty Physics Forums link at last explains your wrong minded attachment to Sp(4,R). The answerer is expounding the symmetry group of harmonic oscillators in 2d, and not the 3d Kepler/hydrogen problem considered here!

By suitably normalizing the LRL vector to ${\mathbf D}\equiv \sqrt{-2H}$ and unravelling to chiral components, A = L + D , B = L - D , you can show the A s close into an su(2) commuting with the su(2) of the B s. So, then, a total so(4). This, now untwisted, so(4) is a bona-fide symmetry and entirely canonical, and a subgroup of sp(6). That is, $$\delta {\mathbf q} = \{ {\mathbf q} , {\mathbf a\cdot A}\},\qquad \delta {\mathbf p} = \{ {\mathbf p} , {\mathbf a\cdot A}\} \\ \delta' {\mathbf q} = \{ {\mathbf q} , {\mathbf b\cdot B}\},\qquad \delta '{\mathbf p} = \{ {\mathbf p} , {\mathbf b\cdot B}\} $$ preserve the Poisson brackets, as you may (should) demonstrate by use of the Jacobi identity.

It hardly matters, since Pauli's algebraic maneuver, upon quantization, works just fine, anyway. One never had to think about canonical transformations.

In conclusion, your connection to the issues of the Physics Forums question appears completely spurious.

added 774 characters in body
Source Link
Cosmas Zachos
  • 66.3k
  • 6
  • 110
  • 248
Loading
added 35 characters in body
Source Link
Cosmas Zachos
  • 66.3k
  • 6
  • 110
  • 248
Loading
deleted 164 characters in body
Source Link
Cosmas Zachos
  • 66.3k
  • 6
  • 110
  • 248
Loading
added 16 characters in body
Source Link
Cosmas Zachos
  • 66.3k
  • 6
  • 110
  • 248
Loading
added 28 characters in body
Source Link
Cosmas Zachos
  • 66.3k
  • 6
  • 110
  • 248
Loading
added 28 characters in body
Source Link
Cosmas Zachos
  • 66.3k
  • 6
  • 110
  • 248
Loading
Source Link
Cosmas Zachos
  • 66.3k
  • 6
  • 110
  • 248
Loading