I want to show that the Lorentz representation $(1/2,1/2)$ corresponds to the normal vectorial representation $A^\mu$. For this I need to show that the double spinors $A_{ij}=(A_\mu\sigma^\mu\sigma^2)_{ij}$ that transforms like $$ A_{ij}\rightarrow(\Lambda_R)_{ik}(\Lambda_L)_{jl}A_{kl} $$ implies that the $A_\mu$ transforms like $$ A^\mu\rightarrow\Lambda^\mu_{\>\>\nu} A^\nu. $$

But I really don't know how to even start this. Maybe I have issues understanding what is this representation. Here is what I did: $$ A'_\mu\sigma^\mu\sigma^2=\Lambda_R\Lambda_LA_\mu\sigma^\mu\sigma^2 $$ Then multiply by $\sigma^2\sigma_\nu$ on the left and taking the trace $$ Tr(\sigma^2\sigma_\nu A'_\mu{\sigma^\mu\sigma^2)=Tr(\sigma^2\sigma_\nu\Lambda_R\Lambda_LA_\mu\sigma^\mu\sigma^2)\\ 2A'_\mu\delta_\nu^\mu=Tr(\sigma^2\Lambda_R\sigma^2\Lambda_LA_\mu\delta^\mu_\nu)\\ 2A'_\nu=Tr(\Lambda_L^\dagger\Lambda_LA_\nu)\\ 2A'_\nu=Tr(\sigma^2\Lambda_L^{-1}\sigma^2\Lambda_LA_\nu)\\ 2A'_\nu=A_\nu} $$which can't be good.


I came up with a solution: $$ A_{ij}'=(\Lambda_R)_{ik}(\Lambda_L)_{jl}A_{kl}\\ (A_\mu'\sigma^\mu\sigma^2)_{ij}=(\Lambda_R)_{ik}(A_\mu\sigma^\mu\sigma^2)_{kl}(\Lambda_L)_{lj}^T\\ \text{Tr}(\sigma^2\sigma_\nu A_\mu'\sigma^\mu\sigma^2)=\text{Tr}(\sigma^2\sigma_\nu\Lambda_RA_\mu\sigma^\mu\sigma^2\Lambda_L^T)\nonumber\\ \text{Tr}(\sigma_\nu A_\mu'\sigma^\mu)=\text{Tr}(\sigma_\nu\Lambda_RA_\mu\sigma^\mu\sigma^2\Lambda_L^T\sigma^2)\nonumber\\ A_\mu'\text{Tr}(\sigma_\nu\sigma^\mu)=\text{Tr}(\sigma_\nu\Lambda_R\sigma^\mu\Lambda_R^*)A_\mu\nonumber\\ 2A_\mu'{\delta}{_\nu^\mu}=\text{Tr}(\sigma_\nu\Lambda_R\sigma^\mu\Lambda_R^*)A_\mu\nonumber\\ A_\nu'=\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}(\sigma_\nu\Lambda_R\sigma^\mu\Lambda_R^*)A_\mu\nonumber\\ A_\nu'={\Lambda}{_\nu^{\>\>\mu}}A_\mu. $$ but I'm not sure why my indices are not good (compared to what I'm supposed to get ${A^{\mu}}'=\Lambda^\mu_{\>\>\nu}A^\nu$).

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/321292/2451 and links therein. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Oct 31 '17 at 16:55
  • $\begingroup$ It is not really what I want to do, but clearly it is related. $\endgroup$ – Soap312 Oct 31 '17 at 18:40
  • $\begingroup$ What is $\sigma^2$ matrix doing there and how come there are no dotted vs. undotted indices? $\endgroup$ – DanielC Nov 1 '17 at 11:50
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielC I really don't know. But I think the $\sigma^2$ is there because of the symmetries of the $\Lambda_R$ and $\Lambda_L$. $\endgroup$ – Soap312 Nov 1 '17 at 14:19
  • $\begingroup$ What book or lecture note do you use? $\endgroup$ – DanielC Nov 1 '17 at 14:56

There is a one-to-one correspondence between a 2x2-matrix which transforms like a product of a undotted spinor and a dotted spinor (for more see below). As far as I've seen your post, you tried to combine 2 spinors of the same type which will not work to make up a 4-vector.

First of all extend the 3 Pauli-matrices to 4 matrices: $\sigma_i =(\bf{1},\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\sigma_3)$.

Furthermore we define $\tilde{\sigma}^i=\sigma_i$. (Note $\tilde{\sigma}^i\neq g^{ik}\sigma_i$, $g$ representing the Minkowski metric).

Construct the 2x2 matrix (summation of double indices which run from 0 to 3.) $X = x^i\sigma_i= \left( \begin{array}{cc} x^0+x^3 & x^1-ix^2\\ x^1+ix^2 & x^0-x^3 \end{array} \right)$. This relation can be inverted: $x^i = \frac{1}{2}Tr(X\tilde{\sigma}^i)$.

Important property of the matrix: $X$ is hermitian $X=X^\dagger$ (the vector $x^i$ is of course real).

We can transform $X$ with any complex unimodular matrix $A \in SL(2,\mathbb{C})$

$X' = A X A^{\dagger}$

The transformed matrix is again hermitian because $X'^{\dagger}= (AXA^{\dagger})^{\dagger} = A X^\dagger A^\dagger = A X A^\dagger = X'$. We can get the corresponding 4-vector from it: $x'^i = \frac{1}{2}Tr(X'\tilde{\sigma}^i)$.

We are almost done, but we have to check an important property. To $x^i \rightarrow x'^i$ be a Lorentz-transformation the length of both vectors has to be the same, so we have to compute $x^ix_i= (x^0)^2-\vec{x}^2 = det X$ (easy to check). This is of course also true for $x'^ix'_i = det X'$.

Now as the transformation matrix $A \in SL(2,\mathbb{C}), det(A)=1$. Therefore we can conclude $x'^ix'_i = det X'=det X=x^ix_i$.

There is just the rule missing how to build from the $A$-matrix the Lorentz-transformation: $x'^i =\frac{1}{2}Tr(X'\tilde{\sigma}^i) = \frac{1}{2}Tr( AXA^\dagger\tilde{\sigma}^i)= \frac{1}{2}Tr( A x^k\sigma_k A^\dagger \tilde{\sigma}^i) = \frac{1}{2}Tr( A \sigma_k A^\dagger \tilde{\sigma}^i) x^k =: L^i_k x^k$

A final remark, the matrix transformation $X' = A X A^{\dagger}$ has to be written with indices in the following form:

$X'^{A\dot{Y}} = A^A_B A^{\dot{Y}}_{\dot{Z}} X^{B\dot{Z}}$.

We can observe that this transformation law corresponds to a representation of the Lorentz-group $D(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})$ (the first entry $\frac{1}{2}$ in the $D$ corresponds to the undotted spinor, the second to the dotted spinor). The coefficients $A$ with the dotted indices are actually complex conjugated to the coefficients with undotted indices (They are defined like this). This explains why the transform law of $X$ is $X' = A X A^\dagger$.

If the coefficients had (what follows is purely hypothetical) only one type of indices ( $A^A_B=A^{\dot{A}}_{\dot{B}}$ ), the transformation law would be $X' = A X A^T$. But this such a law the correspondence between $x^i$ and $X$ would not be possible.

| cite | improve this answer | |

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.