2
$\begingroup$

The question comes from Ryder's Quantum Field Theory, 2nd edition. The author was looking for relativistic spin operator. It was concluded that it cannot be $J^2:=\mathrm{J} \cdot \mathrm{J}$, where $J_i$ is the generator for rotation in Lorentz group.

p.56:

$\ldots \Sigma$ is, of course, the matrix representative of $\mathrm{J}$, so we conclude that the relativistic spin operator is not $\frac{1}{2} \mathrm{J}$. This is confirmed by the fact that $\mathrm{J} \cdot \mathrm{J}=J^2 $(c.f.(2.167)) does not commute with all the generators of the Lorentz group. For example, $\ldots$, $[J^2,K_1] \neq 0 $.

Later Ryder found the square of the Pauli-Lubanski operator is the Casimir, but still not the relativistic spin operator. (It was refered to literature)

I have a question about the logic here. Why the spin operator needs to commute with all the generators in the Lorentz group. If the spin operator commutes with the Hamiltonian, it is a conserved quantity. We can use the eigenvalue to label states (good quantum number). That is precisely $[H,J_i]=0$. Is that still insufficient, because it may be frame-dependent?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The difficulty with labelling states using $ J ^2 $ is indeed because its not a good quantum number in different reference frames.

By demanding that the operator, ${\cal O}$, you want to describe your states commutes with the Hamiltonian you are requiring that \begin{equation} \left[ P ^0 , {\cal O} \right] = 0 \end{equation} However, ${\cal O}$ may not be the same at different values of momenta (i.e., not a good label if we want to consider different frames). In QFT we want states that can be described in all reference frames. Thus we require \begin{equation} \left[ P ^\mu , {\cal O} \right] = 0 \end{equation} In your case, the operator $ J ^2 $ does not commute with the spatial components of momenta, \begin{equation} \left[ P ^i , J ^2 \right] \neq 0 \end{equation} so it is not a useful label in a relativistic theory. Note that if the eigenvalues of $P _i $ are very small one can show that $J^2$ does indeed commute with the momenta, so it is a good label in Quantum Mechanics.

Instead you can extend the idea of $J^2 $ to $ W_\mu W ^\mu$ as mentioned by Trimok.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

The answer is based on the following Ref (chapter $V$, pages $5,6$)

By relativistic spin operator, I think that this means one is searching an expression for a $3$ dimensional operator $\vec S$, such as $S^2 = \frac{1}{m^2} W^\mu W_\mu$ (Here , $W_\mu$ is the Pauli-Lubanski (pseudo)four-vector ) with the usual $SU(2)$ commutation relation for the $S_i$. So $S^2$ is the ratio of two Casimirs and should commute with all generators.

With some additional assumptions, that the $\vec S$ transform as a (pseudo)vector (equation $(74)$ page $5$ of the Ref), and that the $\vec S$ commute with the momenta operator, one is able to find some expression for the operator $\vec S$ (see formulae $(75),(76),(77)$ page $5$ of the Ref).

Lorents Transformation is not trivial for $\vec S$, see formula $(92)$ page $6$ of the Ref.

$\endgroup$

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.