0
$\begingroup$

Using the Hausdorff formula I can find the dilation operator at all position: $$ e^{i x^\rho P_\rho} D e^{-i x^\rho P_\rho}=D+\left[D,-i x^\rho P_\rho\right]+\frac{1}{2}\left[\left[D,-i x^\rho P_\rho\right],-ix^\sigma P_\sigma\right]+\ldots.\tag{1} $$

But isn't the second term zero?

By definition $$D=-ix^\mu \partial_\mu, \qquad P_\mu=-i\partial_\mu\tag{2}$$ then:

$$\begin{align} \left[D,-i x^\rho P_\rho\right] &= [-ix^\mu\partial_\mu, -ix^\rho(-i\partial_\rho)] \\&= -ix^\mu\partial_\mu(-ix^\rho(-i\partial_\rho)) - -ix^\rho(-i\partial_\rho)(-ix^\mu\partial_\mu) \\ &= (-i)^3 x^\mu\partial_\mu(x^\rho(\partial_\rho)) - (-i)^3 x^\rho\partial_\rho(x^\mu\partial_\mu)\\ &= i x^\mu\partial_\mu(x^\rho\partial_\rho) - i x^\rho\partial_\rho(x^\mu\partial_\mu)\\ &=0 \end{align}\tag{3} $$

With renaming of indices, this is exactly the same. Very confused because this shouldn't be the case.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Hint: Be careful to distinguish between operators, variables, constants and eigenvalues. In particular, the $x$s in eqs. (1) & (2) are of different natures. $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Commented Oct 8 at 13:25
  • $\begingroup$ In the sense that the $x^\rho$ in front of the operator $P_\rho$ is not part of the operator so can be put outside of the commutator? But "$x$" variables that are part of the operator cannot ? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 8 at 13:32
  • $\begingroup$ I used the same logic to calculate the commutation relations of operators of the conformal group, and my result was correct. So, the idea is that what is part of the operator should be calculated within the brackets. Otherwise, can we put any variables or constants outside? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 8 at 13:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ According to your definition, $D=x^{\rho}P_{\rho}$, so, yes, your result is correct. This is because $D\sim \pm ix^{\rho}P_{\rho}$, which is the argument of the exponentials. It's as if I have something of the form $e^{\alpha A}Ae^{-\alpha A}$. This expression equals to $A$ because the exponential of $A$ commutes with $A$ $\endgroup$
    – schris38
    Commented Oct 8 at 13:52
  • $\begingroup$ "This shouldn't be the case". Why? This is a standard feature of Campbell's identity. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 8 at 19:04

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

As @Qmechanic points out, you seem to be interested in the subalgebra of the conformal group $$ [D,P_\mu]=iP_\mu, $$ and wonder what a translation of the dilation operator D would be, the translation parameter being $x^\rho$, so the Campbell identity truncates, $$ e^{i x^\rho P_\rho} D e^{-i x^\sigma P_\sigma}=D+\left[D,-i x^\rho P_\rho\right]+\frac{1}{2}\left[\left[D,-i x^\rho P_\rho\right],-ix^\sigma P_\sigma\right]+\ldots. \\ =D- x^\rho P_\rho.\tag{1} $$

Restricting yourself to the coordinate representation (2) can only confuse you, but, indeed, the operator outcome vanishes.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks so much. My last question is that they usually start with the operator that leave the origin invariant and they call it a different way, for example $\Delta$ for the dilation operator instead of D. In your formula (1) they would conclude that $D=\Delta -x^\rho P_\rho = \Delta -ix^\rho \partial_\rho$. In the logic of translating the operator, why don't we start with $\Delta$ between the exponential? Does the subalgebra that constitute of operator that leave the origin invariant satisfy the same commutation relation as the whole conformal group ? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 9 at 10:22
  • $\begingroup$ “They”? I don’t understand your comment. Do you fully appreciate the difference between a Lie algebra and its realizations/representations? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 9 at 11:31
  • $\begingroup$ For example, in Di Francesco's book named Conformal Field Theory. Probably not, because I am missing something. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 9 at 11:35
  • $\begingroup$ I have no access to your text, so I can't read it with you. A realization is a set of operators like your (2) (acting on x and its functions, which leaves the origin invariant) that satisfies the conformal algebra, and here the Lie subalgebra (1)-- whose combinatorics were strictly used in this answer. Restricted to your realization (2), the combinatoric Lie identity (1) of mine yields zero. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 9 at 14:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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