Invariant symbol with four spinor indices

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the identification of invariant symbols with four spinor indices, particularly in the context of Lorentz group representations and their coupling. Participants explore the implications of these representations, focusing on the symmetry properties of the resulting invariant symbols.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants discuss the coupling of Lorentz group representations, specifically (2,1)⊗(2,1) leading to the invariant symbol εab.
  • There is a proposal regarding the existence of another invariant symbol that is symmetric in its indices, with suggestions that it could be expressed as (SLμν)ab(SLρσ)cdεμνρσ.
  • One participant suggests that the second singlet arises from reducing a symmetric tensor into its trace and traceless parts, using the Minkowski metric ημν as the invariant symbol.
  • Another participant emphasizes the need for both undotted and dotted spinors to form a proper vector/tensor quantity.
  • There are discussions about the symmetry properties of the singlet in relation to the indices involved, with some participants questioning the assumptions made about symmetry.
  • One participant mentions the use of a semisimple-Lie-algebra package to analyze the problem, noting that there are two mixed-symmetry combinations of four Majorana spinors and discussing linear independence of certain combinations.
  • Another participant references a specific equation from a paper that supports the symmetry properties initially proposed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the invariant symbols and their symmetry properties. There is no consensus on the exact form of the second invariant symbol or its derivation, indicating ongoing debate and exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions reference specific mathematical identities and properties of spinors, but the implications of these references remain unresolved. The discussion also highlights the complexity of representing spinor indices and the need for careful consideration of symmetry.

torus
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Hi,
from Srednickis QFT textbook, we know the following coupling of Lorentz group representations: (2,1)\otimes (2,1) = (1,1)_A \oplus (3,1)_S, which yields \epsilon_{a b} as an invariant symbol. Generalising, we can look at (2,1)\otimes (2,1) \otimes (2,1) \otimes (2,1) = (1,1) \oplus (1,1)\oplus ...
which implies the existence of two invariant symbols with four spinor indices. One is just the trivial coupling \epsilon_{a b}\epsilon_{c d}, but what is the other one? It should be symmetric in the first two indices, and in the last two, and (I think) be further symmetric under the exchange of the two pairs. Could someone please confirm that it is just (S_L^{\mu\nu})_{a b} (S_L^{\rho\sigma})_{c d} \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}?
(or in a different notation
(\sigma^{\mu\nu})_{a b} (\sigma_{\mu\nu})_{c d}.)

Thanks,
torus
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The 2nd singlet here comes from reducing the symmetric tensor (in vector indices) into its trace and traceless part. The invariant symbol we use to do this is the Minkowski metric ##\eta_{\mu\nu}##.
 
Hm, yes, but I am looking for a representation with spinor indices, i.e. the invariant symbol x_{a b c d}
corresponding to this singlet.
 
The 2nd singlet here comes from reducing the symmetric tensor (in vector indices) into its trace and traceless part. The invariant symbol we use to do this is the Minkowski metric ημν.
He's taking the product of four undotted spinors. Don't you need to use dotted spinors also to form a vector/tensor quantity?
 
I would try to express it as

\sigma^{\mu})_{a b} (\sigma_{\mu})_{c d}.

I'm guessing that this can be reduced into some expression with ##\epsilon##s, but I don't have a good reference to steal standard results from at the moment.
 
(2,1) ⊗ (2,1) = (3,1)S ⊕ (1,1)A. In terms of spinors this is φA χB reduced to tyhe symmetric part φ(A χB) and the trace φA χB εAB.

Now take the product of two of these things, in each way:

(3,1)S ⊗ (3,1)S = (5,1)S ⊕ (3,1) ⊕ (1,1)A
(1,1)S ⊗ (3,1)A = (3,1)S
(3,1)S ⊗ (1,1)A = (3,1)S
(1,1)S ⊗ (1,1)S = (1,1)S

(Total of 16 components)

In spinor language, the first line:

φ(A χB) ψ(C ωD) reduces to the totally symmetric part φ(A χB ψC ωD), a partial trace φ(A χX) ψ(Y ωD) εXY εBC and a full trace φ(W χX) ψ(Y ωZ) εXY εWZεBC εAD.

The remaining three are φX χY ψC ωD εXY εAB, φA χB ψX ωY εXY εCD and φX χY ψW ωZ εXY εWZ εAB εCD.
 
Bill_K said:
He's taking the product of four undotted spinors. Don't you need to use dotted spinors also to form a vector/tensor quantity?

Ah, you're right that we need both left and right-handed spinors to get a Minkowski vector index. What confused me is that you can still view the ##\mathbf{3}## as an ##SO(3)## vector, in which case there is an invariant ##\delta_{ij}##. But it is not what I wrote down.
 
@Bill_K: Thanks a lot, but isn't the singlet in 3x3 symmetric? Then you end up with the symmetry properties I proposed in the first post.
 
Interesting problem. I used my semisimple-Lie-algebra package (My Science and Math Stuff) on it.

I first created the algebra D2 ~ SO(4), and I then took a plethysm (power of rep with some symmetry) of various reps.

torus, what you're working with is a Majorana spinor, (2,1) in multiplicity notation, (1,0) in highest-weight notation, and (1/2,0) in angular-momentum notation.

It turns out that there are 2 mixed-symmetry combinations of 4 Majorana spinors (all nondotted or all dotted). Taking permutations of indices in torus's OP's one gives 3 possibilities. Only 2 of them are linearly independent, as I verified with a brute-force evaluation using Mathematica:
\epsilon_{ab}\epsilon_{cd} - \epsilon_{ac}\epsilon_{bd} + \epsilon_{ad}\epsilon_{bc} = 0

Evaluating fzero's one with signature +---, I find
(\sigma^\mu)_{ab}(\sigma_\mu)_{cd} = 2\epsilon_{ac}\epsilon_{bd}

These looks like some Fierz identities (Wikipedia)

I also tried it with a Dirac spinor, (2,1) + (1,2) / (1,0) + (0,1) / (1/2,0) + (0,1/2). For a square, the scalar products are all antisymmetric, and there are 2 of them. For a fourth power, the scalar products are 6 mixed-symmetry ones, with the same mixed symmetry as the Majorana one, and 1 completely antisymmetric one.
 
  • #10
Thanks for all the replies. I found a very nice reference:
http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:0812.1594
Eq. (2.95) together with (2.64) gives
z_1 \sigma^{\mu\nu} z_2 z_3 \sigma_{\mu\nu} z_4 = - (z_1 z_4) (z_2 z_3) - (z_1 z_3) (z_4 z_2) ,
valid for both commuting and anticommuting spinors z_i, which has the symmetry properties proposed in the initial post.

Regards,
torus
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K