Penrose says in “Cycles of Time” that rest mass isn't exactly a Casimir operator of the de Sitter group, so a very slow decay of rest mass isn't out of the question in our universe.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

If rest mass is strictly conserved, should it be a Casimir operator of the de Sitter group?

Decay of rest mass is crucial for Penrose's “conformal cyclic cosmology” theory, so how strong is this argument that rest mass isn't exactly a Casimir operator?

thanks

Laura

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Casimir operators and rest mass

Loading...

Similar Threads for Casimir operators rest |
---|

I Casimir's trick / Evaluating trace |

I Mean value of the nuclear tensor operator |

A Angular momentum operator derived from Lorentz invariance |

A Confusion regarding the $\partial_{\mu}$ operator |

A Casimir trick for neutrinos |

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**