This question is related to one asked here: Questions concerning some parts of the section on one-particle states in Weinberg's first volume on QFT.

In Eq (2.5.5) of Weinberg's "The Quantum Theory of Fields" Vol. 1, he defines momentum eigenstates $\Psi_{p,\sigma}=N(p)U(L(p))\Psi_{k,\sigma}$ where $k$ is some reference momentum, $L(p)$ is a Lorentz transformation such that $L(p)k=p$, $U(L(p))$ is the unitary operator associated to $L(p)$ that acts on the Hilbert space of states, and $\sigma$ denotes a separate discrete set of eigenvalues that further label the state.

I'm wondering how it's justified that the same $\sigma$ appears on both sides of the equation. A general Lorentz transformation will mix $\sigma$'s, for example when $\sigma$ labels spins and the Lorentz transformation is a rotation.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It's just a convenient definition. Note as you read on that when general Lorentz transformations act on these states that the $\sigma$ eigenstates do get mixed up. The big picture is that we need a way to connect the finite-dimensional representations of the rotation subgroup to the infinite-dimensional reps of the full group. This is one intuitive way to do it. $\endgroup$ – Luke Pritchett Mar 1 '16 at 4:31
  • $\begingroup$ Related (possible duplicate?): physics.stackexchange.com/q/243029 $\endgroup$ – Art Brown Mar 13 '16 at 4:31

If you are describing a quantum system with relativistic symmetry the Hilbert space ${\cal H}$ of this system must carry one unitary representation of the universal cover of the Poincaré group, say $U(\Lambda,a)$. Focusing on just the translations $U(1,a)$ these can be written in terms of their generators, the four-momentum components $P^\mu$, as $$U(1,a)=e^{-i a_\mu P^\mu}\tag{1}.$$

Since the $P^\mu$ are four mutually commuting Hermitian operators we can find a basis of simultaneous eigenvectors for them. Suppose $\Psi_{p,\sigma}$ is such a basis of eigenvectors of the $P^\mu$,

$$P^\mu \Psi_{p,\sigma}=p^\mu \Psi_{p,\sigma}\tag{2},$$

where $\sigma$ labels the degeneracies. Now the coice of basis (2) diagonalizes $P^\mu$ and hence diagonalizes $U(1,a)$ so that the translations are understood. We therefore need to understand the Lorentz transformations $U(\Lambda):=U(\Lambda,0)$. One notices that $U(\Lambda)\Psi_{p,\sigma}$ is an eigenvector of $P^\mu$ with eigenvector $\Lambda^\mu_{\phantom{\mu}\nu}p^\nu$: $$P^\mu U(\Lambda)\Psi_{p,\sigma}=\Lambda^\mu_{\phantom{\mu}\nu}p^\nu U(\Lambda) \Psi_{p,\sigma}\tag{3}.$$

Therefore $U(\Lambda)\Psi_{p,\sigma}$ must lie in the eigenspace of $P^\mu$ with that eigenvalue and that is, by definition of $\sigma$, the space spanned by $\Psi_{\Lambda p,\sigma}$ for the various $\sigma$: $$U(\Lambda)\Psi_{p,\sigma}=\sum_{\bar \sigma}C_{\bar \sigma\sigma}(\Lambda,p)\Psi_{\Lambda p,\bar{\sigma}}\tag{4}.$$

Now the idea is this: you have a space spanned by the various $\Psi_{p,\sigma}$, that is your base. A Lorentz transformation mixes eigenspaces associated to $p$ and $\Lambda p$. Now look for sets of momenta $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^4$ with the property that if $p\in \Omega$ then $\Lambda p \in \Omega$. These are invariant subspaces of momenta with respect to the Lorentz group action on four-vectors. They are characterized by the fact that all $p$ in such set have the same $p^2$ and the same sign of $p^0$. Therefore we name these as $\Omega_m^\pm$ where $p^2=-m^2$ and $\operatorname{sgn}p^0 = \pm$. Inside each $\Omega_m^\pm$ we can pick one $k\in \Omega_m^\pm$ such that all other $p\in \Omega_m^\pm$ can be written as $p = L(p)k$ for a Lorentz transformation $L(p)$.

We now suppose that all $\Psi_{p,\sigma}$ are such that $p\in \Omega_m^+$ for some $m$. The reason is that if it were not the case we could slice the Hilbert in terms of subspaces like that. The reason for doing that is that $U(\Lambda)$ takes $\Psi_{p,\sigma}$ to $\Psi_{\Lambda p,\sigma}$ and therefore does not mix each of hese subspaces with one another.

The catch is that we now change basis. Pick the vector $\Psi_{k,\sigma}$ that lies in the subspace we are concerned with. Now define $$\widetilde{\Psi}_{p,\sigma}:= N(p) U(L(p))\Psi_{k,\sigma}\tag{5}.$$

In particular we demand $N(k)=1$ so that $\widetilde{\Psi}_{k,\sigma} = \Psi_{k,\sigma}$. In that case notice that for the basis $\widetilde{\Psi}_{p,\sigma}$ the relation $$\widetilde{\Psi}_{p,\sigma}=N(p)U(L(p))\widetilde{\Psi}_{k,\sigma}\tag{6},$$

does hold with the same $\sigma$ in both sides by construction.

The reason to choose such a basis is because it is convenient. In fact in this basis Weinberg shows that $$U(\Lambda)\widetilde{\Psi}_{p,\sigma}=\dfrac{N(p)}{N(\Lambda p)}\sum_{\bar \sigma} D_{\bar \sigma \sigma}(W(\Lambda,p))\widetilde{\Psi}_{\Lambda p,\bar \sigma} \tag{7}.$$

The point is that in this basis we see vividly that $U(\Lambda)$ is fully determined by one unitary representation $D(W)$ of the subgroup of the Lorentz group characterized by $\Lambda k = k$. This is known as the little group of $k$ or stabilizer of $k$ and this procedure turns the problem of finding unitary representations of the Poincare group to the problem of finding unitary representations of the stabilizer of each standard momentum $k$ characterizing each possible mass shell. For example, when $m> 0$ this ends up turning to the problem of classifying the possible angular momenta in non-relativistic QM which is very well understood.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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