Why do we say that irreducible representation of Poincare group represents the one-particle state? Only because 1. Rep is unitary, so saves positive-definite norm (for possibility density), 2. Casimir operators of the group have eigenvalues m^2 and m^2 s(s+1), so characterizes mass and spin, and 3. It is the representation of the global group of relativistic symmetry,

wstecznyg5 2022-07-16 Answered
Why do we say that irreducible representation of Poincare group represents the one-particle state?
Only because
1. Rep is unitary, so saves positive-definite norm (for possibility density),
2. Casimir operators of the group have eigenvalues m 2 and m 2 s ( s + 1 ), so characterizes mass and spin, and
3. It is the representation of the global group of relativistic symmetry,
yes?
You can still ask an expert for help

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Solve your problem for the price of one coffee

  • Available 24/7
  • Math expert for every subject
  • Pay only if we can solve it
Ask Question

Answers (2)

Kyan Hamilton
Answered 2022-07-17 Author has 12 answers
First, note that in physics, we consider unitary representations U of the Poincare group acting on the Hilbert space H of the theory because we are interested in a precise formulation of the concept of Poincare transformations acting on the quantum mechanical states of the theory as symmetries (since the laws of physics should be inertial frame-invariant); and by Wigner's theorem, we choose these symmetries to be realized by unitary operators. These observations are related to your #1 and #3 and I think they should be kept conceptually distinct from the notion of a state that represents a single particle state.
Second, since such quantum field theories are supposed to allow for the emergence of states of particles, and in particular should account for states in which there is a single elementary particle, we expect that there is some subset H 1 of the Hilbert space of the theory corresponding to states "containing" a single elementary particle.
Given these observations, let's rephrase your question as follows:
"What properties do we expect that the action of the representation U will have when its domain is restricted to the subspace H 1 ?"
In particular, we would like to justify the following statement
"The restriction of the unitary representation U acting on H to the single-particle subspace H 1 is an irreducible representation of the Poincare group acting on H 1 ."
This requires justifying two things:
1. The restriction maps H 1 into itself.
2. The restriction is irreducible.
If all we are doing is applying a Poincare transformation to the state of the system, namely we are just changing frames, then the number of particles in the state should not change. It would be pretty strange if you were to, for example, boost or rotate from one inertial frame into another and find that there are suddenly more particles in our system.
The irredicibility requirement means that the only invariant subspace of the single particle subspace H 1 is itself and { 0 }. The physical intuition here is that since we are considering a subspace of the Hilbert space in which there is a single elementary particle, expect that there is no non-trivial subspace of H 1 in which vectors of this subspace are simply "rotated" into one another. If there were, then the particle would not be "elementary" in the sense that the non-trivial invariant subspace would represent the states of some "more elementary" particle. When it really comes down to it, however, I'm not sure if there is some more fundamental justification for why the restriction of U to H 1 is irreducible aside from the decades of experience we've now had with particle physics and quantum field theory.
Did you like this example?
Subscribe for all access
ingwadlatp
Answered 2022-07-18 Author has 2 answers
The irreducible representations of the Poincare group are labeled by mass m and the spin s [this corresponds to Casimir invariants m 2 and m 2 s ( s + 1 ) ), so it corresponds naturally to 1-particle relativist states.
The states corresponding to a representation m , s are labelled | p , λ , with p 2 = m 2 and s λ s, and it corresponds here too to 1 particle.
For multi-particle states (Fock states), we have symmetric or anti-symmetric tensorial products of these states, for instance, a 2-particle bosonic state may be written:
| p λ 1 | p λ 2 + | p λ 1 | p λ 2
It is clear that these multi-particle representations are no more irreductible (because they are a sum of product of irreductible representations) .
The unitarity has no influence on this, Fock states corresponds to a unitary representation.
Did you like this example?
Subscribe for all access

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

You might be interested in

asked 2022-08-17
Two person, A and B, each holding one end of a long solid rod.
Now person A pushes the rod on one end.
Question: Is it correct that the information that the rod has been pushed will travel to the other end at the speed of light whereas the actual 'push' will travel at the speed of sound in the rod?
asked 2022-07-14
If the velocity is a relative quantity, will it make inconsistent equations when applying it to the conservation of energy equations?
For example:
In the train moving at V relative to ground, there is an object moving at v relative to the frame in the same direction the frame moves. Observer on the ground calculates the object kinetic energy as 1 2 m ( v + V ) 2 . However, another observer on the frame calculates the energy as 1 2 m v 2 .
asked 2022-07-17
Suppose ϕ ( x ) a scalar field, v μ a 4-vector. According to my notes a quantity of form v μ μ ϕ ( x ) will not be Lorentz invariant.
But explicitly doing the active transformation the quantity becomes
Λ ν μ v ν ( Λ 1 ) μ ρ ρ ϕ ( y ) = v ν ν ϕ ( y )
where y = Λ 1 x and the partial differentiation is w.r.t. y. This seems to suggest that the quantity is a Lorentz scalar, so could be used to construct a Lorentz invariant first order equation of motion.
I'm clearly making a mistake here. But I don't see what I've done wrong. Am I wrong to think that v transforms nontrivially under the active transformation?
asked 2022-08-12
On Einstein original paper "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies", on section 2 of the first part (Kinematics), the following thought experiment is described: a rod is imparted constant speed v in the direction of the x x axis (growing x). At both ends of the rod, A and B, there is a clock, both clocks are synchronous in the stationary system. Then, a ray of light is sent from A at time t A , which is reflected at B at time t B , and arrives at A at time t A . It is then stated that "taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light", we get:
t B t A = r A B c v and  t A t B = r A B c + v
where r A B is the length of the moving rod, measured in the stationary system. Now, if besides the rod's length, both time intervals refer to time in the stationary system, so must speed. Given the previous assumption of its constancy, why are terms like c + v and c v in the above equations?
asked 2022-07-17
Is there an easy way to show that x 2 t 2 = 1 / g 2 for a (relativistic) body undergoing acceleration g?
asked 2022-08-12
The argument is often given that the early attempts of constructing a relativistic theory of quantum mechanics must not have gotten everything right because they led to the necessity of negative energy states. What's so wrong with that? Why can't we have negative energy states?
asked 2022-11-03
Suppose a particle decays to three other particles. The masses of all particles are assumed to be known and we work in the rest frame of the parent particle. So there are 12 parameters for this because of the 4-momenta of the three daughter particles. Now the constraint of momentum conservation imposes 4 constraints and reduces the number of parameters to 8. Further, the energy-momentum relation for each particle imposes three more constraints and reduces the number of parameters to 5. Are there any other constraints that reduce the number of parameters to 2?

New questions