boost

PHY2403H Quantum Field Theory. Lecture 10: Lorentz boosts, generator of spacetime translation, Lorentz invariant field representation. Taught by Prof. Erich Poppitz

October 16, 2018 phy2403 No comments , , , , ,

[Click here for a PDF of this post with nicer formatting]

DISCLAIMER: Very rough notes from class, with some additional side notes.

These are notes for the UofT course PHY2403H, Quantum Field Theory I, taught by Prof. Erich Poppitz fall 2018.

Lorentz transform symmetries.

From last time, recall that an infinitesimal Lorentz transform has the form
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:20}
x^\mu \rightarrow x^\mu + \omega^{\mu\nu} x_\nu,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:40}
\omega^{\mu\nu} = -\omega^{\nu\mu}
\end{equation}

We showed last time that \( \omega^{ij} \) induces a rotation, and will show today that \( \omega^{0i} \) is a boost.

We introduced a three index current, factoring out explicit dependence on the incremental Lorentz transform tensor \( \omega^{\mu\nu} \) as follows
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:80}
J^{\nu \mu\rho} = \inv{2} \lr{ x^\rho T^{\nu\mu} – x^\mu T^{\nu\rho} },
\end{equation}
and can easily show that this current has the desired zero four-divergence property
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:100}
\begin{aligned}
\partial_\nu J^{\nu \mu\rho}
&= \inv{2} \lr{
(\partial_\nu x^\rho) T^{\nu\mu}
+
x^\rho {\partial_\nu T^{\nu\mu} }
– (\partial_\nu x^\mu) T^{\nu\rho}
– x^\mu {\partial_\nu T^{\nu\rho} }
} \\
&= \inv{2} \lr{
(\partial_\nu x^\rho) T^{\nu\mu}
– (\partial_\nu x^\mu) T^{\nu\rho}
} \\
&= \inv{2} \lr{
T^{\rho\mu}
+
– T^{\mu\rho}
} \\
&= 0,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
since the energy-momentum tensor is symmetric.

Defining charge in the usual fashion \( Q = \int d^3 x j^0 \), so we can define a charge for each pair of indexes \( \mu\nu \), and in particular
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:120}
Q^{0k} = \int d^3 x J^{0 0 k} = \inv{2} \int d^3 x \lr{ x^k T^{00} – x^0 T^{0k} }
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:540}
\begin{aligned}
\dot{Q}^{0k}
&= \int d^3 x \dot{J}^{0 0k} \\
&= \inv{2} \int d^3 x \lr{ x^k \dot{T}^{00} – x^0 \dot{T}^{0k} }
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

However, since \( 0 = \partial_\mu T^{\mu \nu} = \dot{T}^{0 \nu} + \partial_j T^{j \nu} \), or \( \dot{T}^{0 \nu} = -\partial_j T^{j \nu} \),
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:560}
\begin{aligned}
\dot{Q}^{0k}
&= \inv{2} \int d^3 x \lr{ x^k (-\partial_j T^{j0}) – T^{0k} – x^0 (-\partial_j T^{jk}) } \\
&= \inv{2} \int d^3 x \lr{
\partial_j (-x^k T^{j0}) + (\partial_j x^k) T^{j0}
– T^{0k} + x^0 \partial_j T^{jk}
} \\
&= \inv{2} \int d^3 x \lr{
\partial_j (-x^k T^{j0}) + {T^{k0}}
– {T^{0k}} + x^0 \partial_j T^{jk}
} \\
&= \inv{2} \int d^3 x \lr{
\partial_j (-x^k T^{j0})
+ x^0 \partial_j T^{jk}
} \\
&= \inv{2} \int d^3 x
\partial_j \lr{
-x^k T^{j0}
+ x^0 T^{jk}
},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
which leaves just surface terms, so \( \dot{Q}^{0k} = 0 \).

Quantizing:

From our previous identification
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture9:560}

{T^\nu}_\mu =
-\partial^\nu \phi \partial_\mu \phi + {\delta^{\nu}}_\mu \LL,
\end{equation}
we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:580}
T^{\nu\mu} = \partial^\nu \phi \partial^\mu \phi – g^{\nu\mu} \LL,
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:600}
\begin{aligned}
T^{00}
&= \partial^0 \phi \partial^0 \phi – \inv{2} \lr{ \partial_0 \phi \partial^0 \phi + \partial_k \phi \partial^k \phi } \\
&= \inv{2} \partial^0 \phi \partial^0 \phi – \inv{2} (\spacegrad \phi)^2,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:620}
T^{0k} = \partial^0 \phi \partial^k \phi,
\end{equation}
so we may quantize these energy momentum tensor components as
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:640}
\begin{aligned}
\hatT^{00} &= \inv{2} \hat{\pi}^2 + \inv{2} (\spacegrad \phihat)^2 \\
\hatT^{0k} &= \inv{2} \hat{\pi} \partial^k \phihat.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

We can now start computing the commutators associated with the charge operator. The first of those commutators is
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:140}
\antisymmetric{\hatT^{00}(\Bx)}{\phihat(\By)}
=
\inv{2}
\antisymmetric{\hat{\pi}^2(\Bx)}{\phihat(\By)},
\end{equation}
which can be evaluated using the field commutator analogue of \( \antisymmetric{F(p)}{q} = i F’ \) which is
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:660}
\antisymmetric{F(\hat{\pi}(\Bx))}{\phihat(\By)} = -i \frac{dF}{d \hat{\pi}} \delta(\Bx – \By),
\end{equation}
to give
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:680}
\antisymmetric{\hatT^{00}(\Bx)}{\phihat(\By)}
= -i \delta^3(\Bx – \By) \hat{\pi}(\Bx)
\end{equation}

The other required commutator is
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:160}
\begin{aligned}
\antisymmetric{\hatT^{0i}(\Bx)}{\phihat(\By)}
&=
\antisymmetric{\hat{\pi}(\Bx)\partial^i \phihat(\Bx)}{\phihat(\By)} \\
&=
\partial^i \phihat(\Bx)
\antisymmetric{\hat{\pi}(\Bx)
}{\phihat(\By)} \\
&= -i \delta^3(\Bx – \By) \partial^i \phihat(\Bx),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

The charge commutator with the field can now be computed
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:180}
\begin{aligned}
i \epsilon \antisymmetric{\hatQ^{0k}}{\phihat(\By)}
&=
i
\frac{\epsilon}{2} \int d^3 x
\lr{
x^k
\antisymmetric{\hatT^{00}}{\phihat(\By)}

x^0
\antisymmetric{\hatT^{0k}}{\phihat(\By)}
} \\
&=
\frac{\epsilon}{2} \lr{ y^k \hat{\pi}(\By) – y^0 \partial^k \phihat(\By) } \\
&=
\frac{\epsilon}{2} \lr{ y^k \dot{\phihat}(\By) – y^0 \partial^k \phihat(\By) },
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
so to first order in \( \epsilon \)
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:200}
e^{i \epsilon \hatQ^{0k} } \phihat(\By)
e^{-i \epsilon \hatQ^{0k} }
=
\phihat(\By)
+ \frac{\epsilon}{2} y^k \dot{\phihat}(\By)
+ \frac{\epsilon}{2} y^0 \partial_k \phihat(\By)
\end{equation}

For example, with \( k = 1 \)
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:700}
\begin{aligned}
e^{i \epsilon \hatQ^{0k} } \phihat(\By)
e^{-i \epsilon \hatQ^{0k} }
&=
\phihat(\By)
+ \frac{\epsilon}{2} \lr{
y^1 \dot{\phihat}(\By)
+
y^0 \PD{y^1}{\phihat}(\By)
} \\
&=
\phihat(y^0 + \frac{\epsilon}{2} y^1,
y^1 + \frac{\epsilon}{2} y^2, y^3).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

This is a boost. If we compare explicitly to an infinitesimal Lorentz transformation of the coordinates
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:220}
\begin{aligned}
x^0 \rightarrow x^0 + \omega^{01} x_1 &= x^0 – \omega^{01} x^1 \\
x^1 \rightarrow x^1 + \omega^{10} x_0 &= x^1 – \omega^{01} x_0 = x^1 – \omega^{01} x^0
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
we can make the identification
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:240}
\frac{\epsilon}{2} = – \omega^{01}.
\end{equation}

We now have the explicit form of the generator of a spacetime translation

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:260}
\boxed{
\hatU(\Lambda) = \exp\lr{-i \omega^{0k} \int d^3 x \lr{ \hatT^{00} x^k – \hatT^{0k} x^0 }}
}
\end{equation}

An explicit boost along the x-axis has the form
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:300}
\hatU(\Lambda) \phihat(t, \Bx)
\hatU^\dagger(\Lambda)
=
\phihat\lr{ \frac{t – vx}{\sqrt{1 – v^2}}, \frac{x – vt}{\sqrt{1 – v^2}}, y, z },
\end{equation}
and more generally
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:320}
\hatU(\Lambda) \phihat(x) \hatU^\dagger(\Lambda) =
\phihat(\Lambda x)
\end{equation}
where \( x \) is a four vector, \( (\Lambda x)^\mu = {{\Lambda}^\mu}_\nu x^\nu \), and \(
{{\Lambda}^\mu}_\nu
\approx
{{\delta}^\mu}_\nu
+
{{\omega}^\mu}_\nu \).

Transformation of momentum states

In the momentum space representation

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:340}
\begin{aligned}
\phihat(x)
&=
\int \frac{d^3 p}{(2 \pi)^3 \sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}} \lr{
e^{i (\omega_\Bp t – \Bp \cdot \Bx)} \hat{a}_\Bp
+
e^{-i (\omega_\Bp t – \Bp \cdot \Bx)} \hat{a}^\dagger_\Bp
} \\
&=
\int \frac{d^3 p}{(2 \pi)^3 \sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}} \evalbar{
\lr{
e^{i p^\mu x^\mu } \hat{a}_\Bp
+
e^{-i p^\mu x^\mu } \hat{a}^\dagger_\Bp
}
}{p_0 = \omega_\Bp}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:720}
\begin{aligned}
\hatU(\Lambda) \phihat(x) \hatU^\dagger(\Lambda)
&=
\phihat(\Lambda x) \\
&=
\int \frac{d^3 p}{(2 \pi)^3 \sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}} \evalbar{
\lr{
e^{i p^\mu {{\Lambda}^\mu}_\nu x^\nu }
\hat{a}_\Bp
+
e^{-i p^\mu {{\Lambda}^\mu}_\nu x^\nu } \hat{a}^\dagger_\Bp
}
}{p_0 = \omega_\Bp}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
This can be put into an explicitly Lorentz invariant form
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:n}
\begin{aligned}
\phihat(\Lambda x)
&=
\int \frac{dp^0 d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \delta(p_0^2 – \Bp^2 – m^2) \Theta(p^0) \sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}
e^{i p^\mu {{\Lambda}^\mu}_\nu x^\nu }
\hat{a}_\Bp + \text{h.c.} \\
&=
\int \frac{dp^0 d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3}
\lr{
\frac{\delta(p_0 – \omega_\Bp)}{2 \omega_\Bp}
+
\frac{\delta(p_0 + \omega_\Bp)}{2 \omega_\Bp}
}
\Theta(p^0) \sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp} \hat{a}_\Bp + \text{h.c.},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
which recovers \ref{eqn:qftLecture10:720} by making use of the delta function identity \( \delta(f(x)) = \sum_{f(x_\conj) = 0} \frac{\delta(x – x_\conj)}{f'(x_\conj)} \), since the \( \Theta(p^0) \) kills the second delta function.

We now have a more explicit Lorentz invariant structure
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:380}
\phihat(\Lambda x)
=
\int \frac{dp^0 d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \delta(p_0^2 – \Bp^2 – m^2) \Theta(p^0) \sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}
e^{i p^\mu {{\Lambda}^\mu}_\nu x^\nu }
\hat{a}_\Bp + \text{h.c.}
\end{equation}

Recall that a boost moves a spacetime point along a parabola, such as that of fig. 1, whereas a rotation moves along a constant “circular” trajectory of a hyper-paraboloid. In general, a Lorentz transformation may move a spacetime point along any path on a hyper-paraboloid such as the one depicted (in two spatial dimensions) in fig. 2. This paraboloid depict the surfaces of constant energy-momentum \( p^0 = \sqrt{ \Bp^2 + m^2 } \). Because a Lorentz transformation only shift points along that energy-momentum surface, but cannot change the sign of the energy coordinate \( p^0 \), this means that \( \Theta(p^0) \) is also a Lorentz invariant.

fig. 1. One dimensional spacetime surface for constant (p^0)^2 – p^2 = m^2.

 

fig. 2. Surface of constant squared four-momentum.

 

Let’s change variables
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:400}
p^\lambda = {{\Lambda}^\lambda}_\rho {p’}^{\rho}
\end{equation}
so that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:420}
\begin{aligned}
p_\mu
{{\Lambda}^\mu}_\nu x^\nu
&=
{{\Lambda}^\lambda}_\rho {p’}^\rho g_{\lambda\nu} {{\Lambda}^\nu}_\sigma x^{\sigma} \\
&=
{p’}^\rho
\lr{ {{\Lambda}^\lambda}_\rho
g_{\lambda\nu} {{\Lambda}^\nu}_\sigma } x^{\sigma} \\
&=
{p’}^\rho g_{\rho\sigma} x^\sigma
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
which gives
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:440}
\begin{aligned}
\phihat(\Lambda x)
&=
\int \frac{d{p’}^0 d^3 p’}{(2\pi)^3} \delta({p’}_0^2 – {\Bp’}^2 – m^2) \Theta(p^0) \sqrt{2 \omega_{\Lambda \Bp’}} e^{i p’ \cdot x} \hat{a}_{\Lambda \Bp’} + \text{h.c.} \\
&=
\int \frac{dp^0 d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \delta({p}_0^2 – {\Bp}^2 – m^2) \Theta(p^0) \sqrt{2 \omega_{\Lambda \Bp}} e^{i p \cdot x} \hat{a}_{\Lambda \Bp} + \text{h.c.}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Since
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:460}
\phihat(x)
=
\int \frac{dp^0 d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \delta({p}_0^2 – {\Bp}^2 – m^2) \Theta(p^0) \sqrt{2 \omega_{\Bp}} e^{i p \cdot x} \hat{a}_{\Bp} + \text{h.c.}
\end{equation}
we can now conclude that the creation and annihilation operators transform as

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:480}
\boxed{
\sqrt{2 \omega_{\Lambda \Bp}} \hat{a}_{\Lambda \Bp}
=
\hatU(\Lambda)
\sqrt{2 \omega_{ \Bp}} \hat{a}_{ \Bp}
\hatU^\dagger(\Lambda)
}
\end{equation}

In particular
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:500}
\sqrt{2 \omega_{ \Bp}} \hat{a}^\dagger_{ \Bp} \ket{0} = \ket{\Bp}
\end{equation}
and noting that \( \hatU(\Lambda) \ket{0} = \ket{0} \) (i.e. the ground state is Lorentz invariant), we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qftLecture10:520}
\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{2 \omega_{\Lambda \Bp}} \hat{a}^\dagger_{\Lambda \Bp} \ket{0}
&=
\hatU(\Lambda) \sqrt{ 2\omega_\Bp} \hat{a}^\dagger_\Bp \hatU^\dagger(\Lambda) \hatU(\Lambda) \ket{0} \\
&=
\hatU(\Lambda) \sqrt{ 2\omega_\Bp} \hat{a}^\dagger_\Bp \ket{0} \\
&=
\hatU(\Lambda) \ket{\Bp}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

Lorentz boosts in Geometric Algebra paravector notation.

January 14, 2018 math and physics play No comments , , , , , , , , , , , ,

[Click here for a PDF of this post with nicer formatting]

Motivation.

The notation I prefer for relativistic geometric algebra uses Hestenes’ space time algebra (STA) [2], where the basis is a four dimensional space \( \setlr{ \gamma_\mu } \), subject to Dirac matrix like relations \( \gamma_\mu \cdot \gamma_\nu = \eta_{\mu \nu} \).

In this formalism a four vector is just the sum of the products of coordinates and basis vectors, for example, using summation convention

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:boostToParavector:160}
x = x^\mu \gamma_\mu.
\end{equation}

The invariant for a four-vector in STA is just the square of that vector

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:boostToParavector:180}
\begin{aligned}
x^2
&= (x^\mu \gamma_\mu) \cdot (x^\nu \gamma_\nu) \\
&= \sum_\mu (x^\mu)^2 (\gamma_\mu)^2 \\
&= (x^0)^2 – \sum_{k = 1}^3 (x^k)^2 \\
&= (ct)^2 – \Bx^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

Recall that a four-vector is time-like if this squared-length is positive, spacelike if negative, and light-like when zero.

Time-like projections are possible by dotting with the “lab-frame” time like basis vector \( \gamma_0 \)

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:boostToParavector:200}
ct = x \cdot \gamma_0 = x^0,
\end{equation}

and space-like projections are wedges with the same

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:boostToParavector:220}
\Bx = x \cdot \gamma_0 = x^k \sigma_k,
\end{equation}

where sums over Latin indexes \( k \in \setlr{1,2,3} \) are implied, and where the elements \( \sigma_k \)

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:boostToParavector:80}
\sigma_k = \gamma_k \gamma_0.
\end{equation}

which are bivectors in STA, can be viewed as an Euclidean vector basis \( \setlr{ \sigma_k } \).

Rotations in STA involve exponentials of space like bivectors \( \theta = a_{ij} \gamma_i \wedge \gamma_j \)

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:boostToParavector:240}
x’ = e^{ \theta/2 } x e^{ -\theta/2 }.
\end{equation}

Boosts, on the other hand, have exactly the same form, but the exponentials are with respect to space-time bivectors arguments, such as \( \theta = a \wedge \gamma_0 \), where \( a \) is any four-vector.

Observe that both boosts and rotations necessarily conserve the space-time length of a four vector (or any multivector with a scalar square).

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:boostToParavector:260}
\begin{aligned}
\lr{x’}^2
&=
\lr{ e^{ \theta/2 } x e^{ -\theta/2 } } \lr{ e^{ \theta/2 } x e^{ -\theta/2 } } \\
&=
e^{ \theta/2 } x \lr{ e^{ -\theta/2 } e^{ \theta/2 } } x e^{ -\theta/2 } \\
&=
e^{ \theta/2 } x^2 e^{ -\theta/2 } \\
&=
x^2 e^{ \theta/2 } e^{ -\theta/2 } \\
&=
x^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

Paravectors.

Paravectors, as used by Baylis [1], represent four-vectors using a Euclidean multivector basis \( \setlr{ \Be_\mu } \), where \( \Be_0 = 1 \). The conversion between STA and paravector notation requires only multiplication with the timelike basis vector for the lab frame \( \gamma_0 \)

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:boostToParavector:40}
\begin{aligned}
X
&= x \gamma_0 \\
&= \lr{ x^0 \gamma_0 + x^k \gamma_k } \gamma_0 \\
&= x^0 + x^k \gamma_k \gamma_0 \\
&= x^0 + \Bx \\
&= c t + \Bx,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

We need a different structure for the invariant length in paravector form. That invariant length is
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:boostToParavector:280}
\begin{aligned}
x^2
&=
\lr{ \lr{ ct + \Bx } \gamma_0 }
\lr{ \lr{ ct + \Bx } \gamma_0 } \\
&=
\lr{ \lr{ ct + \Bx } \gamma_0 }
\lr{ \gamma_0 \lr{ ct – \Bx } } \\
&=
\lr{ ct + \Bx }
\lr{ ct – \Bx }.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

Baylis introduces an involution operator \( \overline{{M}} \) which toggles the sign of any vector or bivector grades of a multivector. For example, if \( M = a + \Ba + I \Bb + I c \), where \( a,c \in \mathbb{R} \) and \( \Ba, \Bb \in \mathbb{R}^3 \) is a multivector with all grades \( 0,1,2,3 \), then the involution of \( M \) is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:boostToParavector:300}
\overline{{M}} = a – \Ba – I \Bb + I c.
\end{equation}

Utilizing this operator, the invariant length for a paravector \( X \) is \( X \overline{{X}} \).

Let’s consider how boosts and rotations can be expressed in the paravector form. The half angle operator for a boost along the spacelike \( \Bv = v \vcap \) direction has the form

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:boostToParavector:120}
L = e^{ -\vcap \phi/2 },
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:boostToParavector:140}
\begin{aligned}
X’
&=
c t’ + \Bx’ \\
&=
x’ \gamma_0 \\
&=
L x L^\dagger \\
&=
e^{ -\vcap \phi/2 } x^\mu \gamma_\mu
e^{ \vcap \phi/2 } \gamma_0 \\
&=
e^{ -\vcap \phi/2 } x^\mu \gamma_\mu \gamma_0
e^{ -\vcap \phi/2 } \\
&=
e^{ -\vcap \phi/2 } \lr{ x^0 + \Bx } e^{ -\vcap \phi/2 } \\
&=
L X L.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

Because the involution operator toggles the sign of vector grades, it is easy to see that the required invariance is maintained

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:boostToParavector:320}
\begin{aligned}
X’ \overline{{X’}}
&=
L X L
\overline{{ L X L }} \\
&=
L X L
\overline{{ L }} \overline{{ X }} \overline{{ L }} \\
&=
L X \overline{{ X }} \overline{{ L }} \\
&=
X \overline{{ X }} L \overline{{ L }} \\
&=
X \overline{{ X }}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

Let’s explicitly expand the transformation of \ref{eqn:boostToParavector:140}, so we can relate the rapidity angle \( \phi \) to the magnitude of the velocity. This is most easily done by splitting the spacelike component \( \Bx \) of the four vector into its projective and rejective components

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:boostToParavector:340}
\begin{aligned}
\Bx
&= \vcap \vcap \Bx \\
&= \vcap \lr{ \vcap \cdot \Bx + \vcap \wedge \Bx } \\
&= \vcap \lr{ \vcap \cdot \Bx } + \vcap \lr{ \vcap \wedge \Bx } \\
&= \Bx_\parallel + \Bx_\perp.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

The exponential

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:boostToParavector:360}
e^{-\vcap \phi/2}
=
\cosh\lr{ \phi/2 }
– \vcap \sinh\lr{ \phi/2 },
\end{equation}

commutes with any scalar grades and with \( \Bx_\parallel \), but anticommutes with \( \Bx_\perp \), so

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:boostToParavector:380}
\begin{aligned}
X’
&=
\lr{ c t + \Bx_\parallel } e^{ -\vcap \phi/2 } e^{ -\vcap \phi/2 }
+
\Bx_\perp e^{ \vcap \phi/2 } e^{ -\vcap \phi/2 } \\
&=
\lr{ c t + \Bx_\parallel } e^{ -\vcap \phi }
+
\Bx_\perp \\
&=
\lr{ c t + \vcap \lr{ \vcap \cdot \Bx } } \lr{ \cosh \phi – \vcap \sinh \phi }
+
\Bx_\perp \\
&=
\Bx_\perp
+
\lr{ c t \cosh\phi – \lr{ \vcap \cdot \Bx} \sinh \phi }
+
\vcap \lr{ \lr{ \vcap \cdot \Bx } \cosh\phi – c t \sinh \phi } \\
&=
\Bx_\perp
+
\cosh\phi \lr{ c t – \lr{ \vcap \cdot \Bx} \tanh \phi }
+
\vcap \cosh\phi \lr{ \vcap \cdot \Bx – c t \tanh \phi }.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

Employing the argument from [3],
we want \( \phi \) defined so that this has structure of a Galilean transformation in the limit where \( \phi \rightarrow 0 \). This means we equate

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:boostToParavector:400}
\tanh \phi = \frac{v}{c},
\end{equation}

so that for small \(\phi\)

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:boostToParavector:420}
\Bx’ = \Bx – \Bv t.
\end{equation}

We can solving for \( \sinh^2 \phi \) and \( \cosh^2 \phi \) in terms of \( v/c \) using

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:boostToParavector:440}
\tanh^2 \phi
= \frac{v^2}{c^2}
=
\frac{ \sinh^2 \phi }{1 + \sinh^2 \phi}
=
\frac{ \cosh^2 \phi – 1 }{\cosh^2 \phi}.
\end{equation}

which after picking the positive root required for Galilean equivalence gives
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:boostToParavector:460}
\begin{aligned}
\cosh \phi &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 – (\Bv/c)^2}} \equiv \gamma \\
\sinh \phi &= \frac{v/c}{\sqrt{1 – (\Bv/c)^2}} = \gamma v/c.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

The Lorentz boost, written out in full is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:boostToParavector:480}
ct’ + \Bx’
=
\Bx_\perp
+
\gamma \lr{ c t – \frac{\Bv}{c} \cdot \Bx }
+
\gamma \lr{ \vcap \lr{ \vcap \cdot \Bx } – \Bv t }
.
\end{equation}

Authors like Chappelle, et al., that also use paravectors [4], specify the form of the Lorentz transformation for the electromagnetic field, but for that transformation reversion is used instead of involution.
I plan to explore that in a later post, starting from the STA formalism that I already understand, and see if I can make sense
of the underlying rationale.

References

[1] William Baylis. Electrodynamics: a modern geometric approach, volume 17. Springer Science \& Business Media, 2004.

[2] C. Doran and A.N. Lasenby. Geometric algebra for physicists. Cambridge University Press New York, Cambridge, UK, 1st edition, 2003.

[3] L. Landau and E. Lifshitz. The Classical theory of fields. Addison-Wesley, 1951.

[4] James M Chappell, Samuel P Drake, Cameron L Seidel, Lachlan J Gunn, and Derek Abbott. Geometric algebra for electrical and electronic engineers. Proceedings of the IEEE, 102 0(9), 2014.

Update to old phy356 (Quantum Mechanics I) notes.

February 12, 2015 math and physics play No comments , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s been a long time since I took QM I. My notes from that class were pretty rough, but I’ve cleaned them up a bit.

The main value to these notes is that I worked a number of introductory Quantum Mechanics problems.

These were my personal lecture notes for the Fall 2010, University of Toronto Quantum mechanics I course (PHY356H1F), taught by Prof. Vatche Deyirmenjian.

The official description of this course was:

The general structure of wave mechanics; eigenfunctions and eigenvalues; operators; orbital angular momentum; spherical harmonics; central potential; separation of variables, hydrogen atom; Dirac notation; operator methods; harmonic oscillator and spin.

This document contains a few things

• My lecture notes.
Typos, if any, are probably mine(Peeter), and no claim nor attempt of spelling or grammar correctness will be made. The first four lectures had chosen not to take notes for since they followed the text very closely.
• Notes from reading of the text. This includes observations, notes on what seem like errors, and some solved problems. None of these problems have been graded. Note that my informal errata sheet for the text has been separated out from this document.
• Some assigned problems. I have corrected some the errors after receiving grading feedback, and where I have not done so I at least recorded some of the grading comments as a reference.
• Some worked problems associated with exam preparation.