Recent content by JohnSt

The very question was motivated by my having read the Georgi paper, where not a single strict statement was made. It seems that everybody copypastes the same science fiction phrases without having any idea what uparticles are

Thank you, but I still hope to see some mathematically strict statement - unparticles must respect at least the Poincare symmetry, probably the whole conformal group. The following natural question may arise Do unparticles correspond to some unitary irreducible representations of the...

There is an activity in arxiv that is concerned with so-called Unparticles, which are defined as some scale invariant stuff with rather strange behaviour. Does anybody know what is meant in the strict math sense? As was shown by Wigner long ago, Quantum Mechanics plus Special Relativity...

You are too skilled! One need not "spinor bundles" to prove that it is not possible to extend spinorial representation to a representation of general linear group without enlargring the representation space. It is all about spinors and vectors, not about sections of bundles. Thank you for trying.

Excuse me, I found no chapter 5 in this book. Paragraph 5 deals with representation, but non a single word had Lawson said about general linear group and its infinite-dimensional spinors.

Thank you very much. These are well or less-known but nontrivial facts. For example, highly nontrivial is the fact that the double covering of the real general linear group is not a matrix group. I wonder if there is a simple proof with no mention of double-coverings etc

Does anybody know a simple proof of the fact that there are no finite-dimensional extensions of the \textsl{so(n)}-spinor representation to the group of general linear transformations. The proof seems can be based on the well-known fact that when rotated 2\pi a spinor transforms...