Is chirality operator defined in odd dimensions?

Click For Summary
The chirality operator, defined as γ^5 = iγ^0γ^1γ^2γ^3 in 3+1 dimensions, is argued to be undefined in odd dimensions due to its commutation properties with gamma matrices. In even dimensions, a generalized chirality operator can be constructed that anticommutes with all gamma matrices, while in odd dimensions, it commutes, making it effectively a multiple of the identity matrix. This leads to the conclusion that defining a chirality operator in odd dimensions, such as 4+1 or 6 dimensions, may not yield a useful operator. The discussion emphasizes the importance of the algebraic properties of gamma matrices in determining the validity of chirality operators across different dimensions. Understanding these properties is crucial for theoretical physics applications involving spinors and chirality.
arroy_0205
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
As far as I remember, I heard from someone that the matrix
<br /> \gamma^5=i\gamma^0\gamma^1\gamma^2\gamma^3<br />
also known as the chirality operator in 3+1 dimension is not defined in odd dimensions. I do not understand why that should be the case. Suppose I am in the 4+1 dimension and I choose one more gamma matrix suitably to close the Clifford algebra in five dimensions and then define analogously to the 4 dimensional case, the operator
<br /> \Gamma^c=i\gamma^0\gamma^1\gamma^2\gamma^3\gamma^4<br />
as my chirality operator. Will that be a mistake?
What about six dimensions? Can I define my chirality operator by multiplying the required no. of basic gamma matrices in that dimension?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The STA basis vectors, which is also a clifford algebra, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_algebra), I believe map to the matrix respresentation you are using. With that basis, the value:

<br /> i = \gamma_0\gamma_1\gamma_2\gamma_3 = -\gamma^0\gamma^1\gamma^2\gamma^3<br />

where i is the usual pseudoscalar for the space, and i^2 = -1. Not knowing exactly what your matrix representation is, I'd guess you have:

<br /> i\gamma^0\gamma^1\gamma^2\gamma^3 = -\gamma^0<br />.

If that's the case, then it doesn't appear to me that this is a very useful operator in 3+1 dimensions.

Before thinking about the 4+1 case, what matrixes are you using for \gamma^{\mu} in the 3+1 dimensional case?
 
arroy_0205 said:
As far as I remember, I heard from someone that the matrix
<br /> \gamma^5=i\gamma^0\gamma^1\gamma^2\gamma^3<br />
also known as the chirality operator in 3+1 dimension is not defined in odd dimensions. I do not understand why that should be the case. Suppose I am in the 4+1 dimension and I choose one more gamma matrix suitably to close the Clifford algebra in five dimensions and then define analogously to the 4 dimensional case, the operator
<br /> \Gamma^c=i\gamma^0\gamma^1\gamma^2\gamma^3\gamma^4<br />
as my chirality operator. Will that be a mistake?
What about six dimensions? Can I define my chirality operator by multiplying the required no. of basic gamma matrices in that dimension

In any dimensions, (n = 2p, or n = 2p + 1), a "generilised \gamma_{5}" can be defined by

\Gamma_{n + 1} \equiv \Gamma_{1}\Gamma_{2}...\Gamma_{n}

From the algebra

\{\Gamma_{a}, \Gamma_{b}\} = 2 \eta_{ab} \ I

it follows that \Gamma_{n+1} anticommutes with all \Gamma_{a} for even dimensions ( n = 2p ), i.e.,

\{\Gamma_{n+1}, \Gamma_{a}\} = 0 \ \ \forall a = 1,2,..,2p

but, for odd dimensions (n = 2p +1), it COMMUTES with all \Gamma_{a}, i.e.,

[\Gamma_{n+1},\Gamma_{a}] = 0, \ \ \forall a = 1,2,..,2p+1

Therefore in odd dimensions, by Schur's lemma, \Gamma_{n+1} is a multiple of the unit matrix. This fact is valid in any representation you choose for the gamma matrices.

regards

sam
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
459
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K