Casimir operators and rest mass

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the relationship between rest mass and Casimir operators within the context of the de Sitter group, particularly in relation to Penrose's theory of conformal cyclic cosmology. Participants explore the implications of rest mass potentially not being a Casimir operator and the consequences for cosmological theories.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested, Conceptual clarification, Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Laura references Penrose's assertion that rest mass may not be a Casimir operator of the de Sitter group, suggesting that this could allow for a slow decay of rest mass in the universe.
  • Some participants express respect for Penrose's ideas but challenge the notion of rest mass decay, citing a lack of evidence supporting this claim.
  • It is noted that the de Sitter group possesses quadratic Casimir operators, none of which align exactly with rest mass, supporting Penrose's theoretical position.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the lack of experimental evidence for the de Sitter group's relevance to local physics compared to the well-established Poincare group.
  • One participant mentions that the only indication of de Sitter invariance is the observed accelerated expansion of the universe, which could suggest a hidden symmetry.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of rest mass not being a Casimir operator, with some supporting Penrose's theory and others questioning its validity due to a lack of evidence. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the relationship between rest mass and the symmetry groups in question.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the theoretical correctness of Penrose's statement about the de Sitter group's Casimir operators, but they also highlight the absence of experimental validation for the de Sitter group's influence on local physics.

lark
Messages
157
Reaction score
0
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.
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 news on Phys.org
Laura, I have the highest respect for Penrose, and his Cyclic Conformal Cosmology is a very interesting and innovative idea. Nevertheless it is difficult to support. There is no evidence for his belief that all rest mass will eventually decay. It's well established that the Poincare group is the symmetry group of the laws of physics. There is no reason why the symmetry group of the cosmology we live in (de Sitter group) should be the same, or have any influence on local physics.
 
The de Sitter group has quadratic Casimir operators none of which is exactly the rest mass. So his statement is theoretically correct. However, there's still no experimental evidence that the laws be invariant to de Sitter and not Poincare.
 
the only indication for deSitter I am aware of is the accelerated expansion which could indicate a hidden deSitter invariance
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
15K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K