Is there a universal equation for all spin-2 particles?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter RedX
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Form Spin
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Proca equation for massive spin-1 particles and the complexities surrounding the Lagrangian formulations for spin-2 particles. The Proca equation is defined as \partial_\mu(\partial^\mu A^\nu - \partial^\nu A^\mu)+ \left(\frac{mc}{\hbar}\right)^2 A^\nu=0, with the Lagrangian given by \mathcal{L}=-\frac{1}{16\pi}(\partial^\mu A^\nu-\partial^\nu A^\mu)(\partial_\mu A_\nu-\partial_\nu A_\mu)+\frac{m^2 c^2}{8\pi \hbar^2}A^\nu A_\nu. The discussion highlights that deviations from the QED kinetic term introduce additional propagating degrees of freedom, specifically a spin-zero field. The conversation also touches on the Lagrangian for spin-2 particles, suggesting that not all spin-2 particles adhere to a universal equation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Proca equation for massive spin-1 particles
  • Familiarity with Lagrangian mechanics in quantum field theory
  • Knowledge of U(1) symmetry in field theories
  • Basic concepts of spin-2 particles and scalar curvature
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Proca equation and its implications in quantum field theory
  • Explore the details of the Lagrangian formulation in Weinberg's "The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume I"
  • Investigate the properties of spin-2 particles and their associated equations
  • Learn about the role of scalar curvature in general relativity and its relation to graviton fields
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, particularly those specializing in quantum field theory and general relativity, as well as students and researchers interested in the behavior of spin-1 and spin-2 particles.

RedX
Messages
963
Reaction score
3
The equation for a massive spin 1 particle is given by the Proca equation:

[tex]\partial_\mu(\partial^\mu A^\nu - \partial^\nu A^\mu)+ \left(\frac{mc}{\hbar}\right)^2 A^\nu=0[/tex]

My question is why this equation? In particular, why can't it be like this instead:[tex]\partial_\mu(\partial^\mu A^\nu +2 \partial^\nu A^\mu)+ \left(\frac{mc}{\hbar}\right)^2 A^\nu=0[/tex]

The Lagrangian is given by:

[tex]\mathcal{L}=-\frac{1}{16\pi}(\partial^\mu A^\nu-\partial^\nu A^\mu)(\partial_\mu A_\nu-\partial_\nu A_\mu)+\frac{m^2 c^2}{8\pi \hbar^2}A^\nu A_\nu[/tex]

and again, why can't the derivative terms instead be:

[tex]X\partial_\nu A_\mu \partial^\nu A^\mu+Y\partial_\nu A^\nu \partial^\mu A_\mu +Z\partial_\nu A^\mu \partial_\mu A^\nu[/tex]

for arbitrary real numbers X,Y, and Z?

The answer can't be that there is a U(1) symmetry, because the mass terms don't obey the U(1) symmetry.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First, note that your Y term can be converted to your Z term (or vice versa) by integrating each derivative by parts to move it onto the other A. But there are still two possible inequivalent terms, so your question remains.

The answer in given in Weinberg vol I. If you choose any relative coefficient other than the QED one, there is an extra propagating spin-zero field, essentially the 4-divergence of A. Choosing the QED kinetic term eliminates this spin-zero field as a propagating degree of freedom. See Weinberg for the details.
 
Avodyne said:
The answer in given in Weinberg vol I. If you choose any relative coefficient other than the QED one, there is an extra propagating spin-zero field, essentially the 4-divergence of A. Choosing the QED kinetic term eliminates this spin-zero field as a propagating degree of freedom. See Weinberg for the details.

Thanks for the information! I'll have a look at Weinberg's book, but real quick, does the reason have to do with quantum field theory, or does it hold true even in relativistic quantum mechanics?

Also, I was thinking about spin-2. The Lagrangian is given by:

[tex] S=\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}R [/tex]

where [tex] R=R(g_{\mu \nu}) [/tex]

is the scalar curvature, a function of the metric [tex] g_{\mu\nu} [/tex] or graviton field.

Would a different spin 2 particle, say [tex] z_{\mu\nu} [/tex], have the Lagrangian:

[tex] S=\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}R [/tex]

where this time the scalar curvature [tex] R=R(z_{\mu \nu}) [/tex]

is of the same form as previously, but replacing a z for every g?

Because if this is true, then spin-2 particles don't all obey the same equation. Every spin 0 particle obeys Klein-Gordan. Every spin 1/2 the Dirac equation. But the graviton seems special.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K