A How can I calculate the square of the Pauli-Lubanski pseudovector?

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the square of the Pauli-Lubanski pseudovector, specifically demonstrating that W² = -m²S² in the rest frame of a particle. The Pauli-Lubanski vector Wμ is defined using the operator Mμν, which incorporates position and momentum, alongside the spin operator Si derived from the generators of the Lorentz group. The rest frame is emphasized as the best context for interpreting spin, as it simplifies the understanding of the relationship between spin and the Pauli-Lubanski vector. The conversation also touches on the significance of the Pauli-Lubanski vector in relativistic quantum field theory and its role in the representation theory of the Poincaré group. Overall, the thread seeks clarity on these complex relationships within the framework of relativistic physics.
tannhaus
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
I need to calculate the square of the Pauli-Lubanski pseudovector in a rest frame such that the results is proportional to the square of the spin operator.
Hello there, recently I've been trying to demonstrate that, $$\textbf{W}^2 = -m^2\textbf{S}^2$$ in a rest frame, with ##W_{\mu}## defined as $$W_{\mu} = \dfrac{1}{2}\varepsilon_{\mu\alpha\beta\gamma}M^{\alpha\beta}p^{\gamma}$$ such that ##M^{\mu\nu}## is an operator of the form $$ M^{\mu\nu}=x^{\mu}p^{\nu} - x^{\nu}p^{\mu} + \frac{i}{2}\Sigma^{\mu\nu}$$ and ##S^i## defined as $$S_i = \varepsilon^{ijk}\frac{i}{2}\Sigma^{jk}$$ Where ##\Sigma^{\mu\nu} = [\beta^{\mu}, \beta^{\nu}]##. I've managed to show that ##\textbf{S}^2 = \dfrac{1}{2}\Sigma^{ij}\Sigma_{ij}## but I can't for my life work out the necessary result. Any sort of light towards this is very welcome!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your expressions are manifestly covariant. "Spin" for a massive particle is, however, most easily to interpret in the rest frame of the particle. So to have some intuitive picture, it's best to calculate it within this frame, and this is simply defined by ##(p^{\mu})=(m c,0,0,0)##. In this frame you have a pretty intuitive interpretation of "spin" and the Pauli Lubanski vector (the latter one being the only viable definition of spin in relativistic physics, where in general a unique split of total angular momentum into "spin" and "orbital" is not possible). For more on "classical spin" in relativity, see Sect. 1.8 in

https://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/pf-faq/srt.pdf

That becomes much clearer in the context of relativistic QFT and a detailed analysis of the representation theory of the Poincare group, where the Pauli Lubanski vector is the generator for little-group transformations, and the little group for massive-particle representations is the rotation group (or its covering group SU(2)) as defined in the rest frame of the particle. The quantities in other frames is then given by the (rotation free) Lorentz boosts from the rest frame of the particle to an arbitrary frame, where it's moving. For details see

https://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/publ/lect.pdf

(particularly Appendix B).
 
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K