Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Arxiv that is concerned with so-called Unparticle

  1. Aug 9, 2008 #1
    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 implies that all stuff must realize some unitary irreducible representation of the Poincare group (or (anti)-de Sitter if one lives in a world with nonzero cosmological constant). Certain Poincare group representations can be extended to representations of the conformal algebra.

    Which representations are associated with unparticles?
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 10, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re: Unparticle?

    Still Poincare in a sense. *But* the particle interpretation is no longer really applicable for pure clasiffication, because unparticles aren't really amenable to the particle framework.

    For instance, take two unparticles and try to add them. The result is not necesarily two unparticles. It would be like (a bad analogy) taking two different sound waves and trying to add them. Do you have two sound waves, or really one, or one and a half (etc)? What do you mean by 'adding' and so forth

    The best way to think of them exists in the framework of strongly coupled CFT dynamics. They are like a sort of fractional quanta of those.
  4. Aug 10, 2008 #3
    Re: Unparticle?

    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 Poicare(Conformal group)? may be some of the requirements (e.g. irreducibility is dropped). and if so, how these unparticle representations are classified?

    I would like to emphasize that sentences like "they cannot be realized as particles", "unparticles have no analogous .." - it is a sort of science fiction and definitely not the definition of new objects.
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2008
  5. Aug 11, 2008 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re: Unparticle?

    "particles" cannot be defined in a conformal theory - the "particle states" are asymptotic states that have no interactions, and there are no such beasties in a CFT. Georgi's idea is that there is some CFT sector somewhere, and it couples to the visible SM sector only through higher-dimensional operators. The "states" of this pseudo-CFT are cleverly named "unparticles" - it's one of those things, like naming the supersymmetric quark a "squark". I'm sure Howard got a good laugh at it!

    For some details in how this works, you should check out the original paper by Georgi. It's pretty easy to read and available on the arxiv. Just search for Georgi and title "unparticle" and you'll find it.
  6. Aug 12, 2008 #5
    Re: Unparticle?

    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
  7. Aug 12, 2008 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re: Unparticle?

    "single strict statement was made"

    Its a phenomenology paper. It would be like complaining that no one gives the proper exact microscopic definition for a quintescence field from astrophysics. Well thats sort of the point. Unparticles are sort of a 'parametrization of ignorance' about a hidden conformal field sector that could in principle interact weakly with standard model fields. We parametrize our ignorance by looking at the possible effects it could have on laboratory experiments.. Missing energy/momentum and so forth from presumably known effective field theory interactions.

    The dynamics of CFTs can be quite complicated in the infrared, which is where the whole idea originates from (see for instance the Banks paper from the early 80s) and rather than tackling physical interprations of that mess from the getgo, he simply frames it by looking at the specific case of small interactions with standard model fields. What we would see is thus.. unparticles.
  8. Aug 13, 2008 #7


    User Avatar

    Re: Unparticle?

    There have been over 100 papers on unparticles since Georgi's first. You should check those out, since some of them offer explanations of how unparticles might manifest themselves physically (including a recent one by Georgi). For example:

    J. McDonald. "Unparticles: Interpretation and Cosmology". arXiv:0805.1888

    H. Georgi and Y. Kats. "An Unparticle Example in 2D". arXiv:0805.3953
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Arxiv that is concerned with so-called Unparticle
  1. Unparticle physics (Replies: 3)

  2. Unparticle Physics (Replies: 3)