Casimir operators and rest mass

  • Thread starter lark
  • Start date
  • #1
163
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

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
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Bill_K
Science Advisor
Insights Author
4,155
194
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.
 
  • #3
dextercioby
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
12,981
540
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.
 
  • #4
tom.stoer
Science Advisor
5,766
160
the only indication for deSitter I am aware of is the accelerated expansion which could indicate a hidden deSitter invariance
 

Related Threads on Casimir operators and rest mass

  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
10K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
108
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
5K
Top