Massive spin-s representations of the Poincare group

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the realization of irreducible massive representations of the Poincaré group as spin tensor fields, specifically focusing on the properties of these fields under certain transformations and supplementary conditions. The participants explore the implications of a mapping between different spaces of spin tensor fields and the symmetry properties of these fields.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a mapping from the space of spin tensor fields ##\mathcal{H}_{(A,B)}## to ##\mathcal{H}_{(A+1,B-1)}## and questions the symmetry of the resulting fields after applying this map.
  • Another participant argues that the mapping is one-to-one and that elements of ##\mathcal{H}_{(A+1, B - 1)}## are symmetric in their undotted indices, thus supporting the claim of symmetry after the mapping.
  • The first participant expresses uncertainty about generalizing their findings from a specific case to the broader context of the mapping and its implications for symmetry.
  • A later reply emphasizes that applying the mapping multiple times leads to equivalent representation spaces for the Poincaré group, suggesting that all these spaces describe massive spin-s fields with the same number of independent components.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of the mapping and its effects on symmetry. While one participant asserts the symmetry of the resulting fields, the initial poster remains uncertain about the generalization of this result.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes references to specific mathematical conditions and properties of the fields involved, but does not resolve the uncertainties regarding the implications of these conditions on the symmetry of the fields after the mapping.

pondzo
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Context

The following is from the book "Ideas and methods in supersymmetry and supergravity" by I.L. Buchbinder and S.M Kuzenko, pg 56-60. It is about realizing the irreducible massive representations of the Poincare group as spin tensor fields which transform under certain representations of the homogeneous Lorentz group and are subject to some supplementary conditions.

Consider the linear space ##\mathcal{H}_{(A,B)}## of ##(A/2,B/2)## type spin tensor fields ##\Phi_{\alpha_1\cdots\alpha_A\dot{\alpha}_1\cdots\dot{\alpha}_B}(x)## totally symmetric in their A undotted indices and independently in their B dotted indices, with ##A+B=2s## and which satisfy the following supplementary conditions:
$$\begin{cases}\partial^{\dot{\alpha}\alpha}\Phi_{\alpha\alpha_1\cdots\alpha_{A-1}\dot{\alpha}\dot{\alpha}_1\cdots\dot{\alpha}_{B-1}}(x)=0 && (1)\\ (\partial^a\partial_a-m^2)\Phi_{\alpha_1\cdots\alpha_A\dot{\alpha}_1\cdots\dot{\alpha}_B}(x)=0&&(2)\end{cases}$$
Here ##\partial_{\alpha\dot{\alpha}}=(\sigma^a)_{\alpha\dot{\alpha}}\partial_a## and ##\partial^{\dot{\alpha}\alpha}=(\tilde{\sigma}^a)^{\dot{\alpha}\alpha}\partial_a=\varepsilon^{\dot{\alpha}\dot{\beta}}\varepsilon^{\alpha\beta}(\sigma^a)_{\beta\dot{\beta}}\partial_a##, ##\sigma^a=(\text{Id},\vec{\sigma})## and ## \tilde{\sigma}^a=(\text{Id},-\vec{\sigma}).## My metric convention is ##\eta_{ab}=\text{Diag}(-1,1,1,1)##, spinor indices are greek letters whilst Lorentz indices are Latin.

Consider the following one-to-one map:
$$\Delta_{{\alpha}_{A+1}}^{~~~\dot{\alpha}_B}: \mathcal{H}_{(A,B)}\rightarrow \mathcal{H}_{(A+1,B-1)}$$
$$\Phi_{\alpha_1\cdots\alpha_A\alpha_{A+1}\dot{\alpha}_1\cdots\dot{\alpha}_{B-1}}(x):=\Delta_{{\alpha}_{A+1}}^{~~\dot{\alpha}_B}\Phi_{\alpha_1\cdots\alpha_A\dot{\alpha}_1\cdots\dot{\alpha}_B}(x) ~~\text{ where }~~ \Delta_{\alpha_{A+1}}^{~~\dot{\alpha_B}}=\frac{1}{m}\partial_{\alpha_{A+1}}^{~~\dot{\alpha_B}}$$
The map is one-to-one because it can be shown, using the mass shell condition (1), that it has an inverse defined by ##\Delta_{\alpha}^{~~\dot{\alpha}}\Delta^{\beta}_{~~\dot{\alpha}}=\delta_{\alpha}^{\beta}##. Although for the purpose of this thread it is not necessary to look at the inverse map.

Question

To me, it is not obvious that after we have acted on an element of ##\mathcal{H}_{(A,B)}## with ##\Delta_{{\alpha}_{A+1}}^{~~~\dot{\alpha}_B}##, the result is totally symmetric in its undotted indices, including the additional one created through the map. However, this is a claim of the author's. So I would like to prove the following:
$$\Delta_{({\alpha}_{A+1}}^{~~\dot{\alpha}_B}\Phi_{\alpha_1\cdots\alpha_A)\dot{\alpha}_1\cdots\dot{\alpha}_B}(x)=\Delta_{{\alpha}_{A+1}}^{~~\dot{\alpha}_B}\Phi_{\alpha_1\cdots\alpha_A\dot{\alpha}_1\cdots\dot{\alpha}_B}(x)$$

Attempt

I'm almost certain that the result should follow from supplementary condition (2) (which is sometimes reffered to as the 'spin selection' condition) along with the fact that ##\Phi_{\alpha_1\cdots\alpha_A\dot{\alpha}_1\cdots\dot{\alpha}_B}(x)## is totally symmetric in its undotted indices. However, again, it isn't at all obvious as to why.

To gain some intuition for the problem I tried a simple case:
$$\Delta_{\gamma}^{~~\dot{\beta}}:\mathcal{H}_{(2,2)}\rightarrow \mathcal{H}_{(3,1)}$$
$$X_{\alpha\beta\dot{\alpha}\dot{\beta}}\rightarrow X_{\alpha\beta\gamma\dot{\alpha}}:=\Delta_{\gamma}^{~~\dot{\beta}}X_{\alpha\beta\dot{\alpha}\dot{\beta}} ~~\text{ where } X_{(\alpha\beta)(\dot{\alpha}\dot{\beta})}=X_{\alpha\beta\dot{\alpha}\dot{\beta}}$$

The aim of this intuitive exercise would then be to show that ##X_{\alpha\beta\gamma\dot{\alpha}}=X_{\gamma\beta\alpha\dot{\alpha}}##, for example.

If I explicitly plug in some numbers for the indices, I can see that, for example, the case ##(\alpha=1,\gamma=2)## is equal to the case ##(\alpha=2,\gamma=1)## as a result of supplementary condition (2). However I am struggling to generalize this and am certainly not content with leaving the argument here. Does anyone have a suggestion or hint for me? Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
pondzo said:
Question
To me, it is not obvious that after we have acted on an element of ##\mathcal{H}_{(A,B)}## with ##\Delta_{{\alpha}_{A+1}}^{~~~\dot{\alpha}_B}##, the result is totally symmetric in its undotted indices, including the additional one created through the map. However, this is a claim of the author's. So I would like to prove the following:
$$\Delta_{({\alpha}_{A+1}}^{~~\dot{\alpha}_B}\Phi_{\alpha_1\cdots\alpha_A)\dot{\alpha}_1\cdots\dot{\alpha}_B}(x)=\Delta_{{\alpha}_{A+1}}^{~~\dot{\alpha}_B}\Phi_{\alpha_1\cdots\alpha_A\dot{\alpha}_1\cdots\dot{\alpha}_B}(x)$$
Thank you.
There is no case to answer! You have already said that the map \Delta : \mathcal{H}^{(A,B)} \to \mathcal{H}^{(A+1,B -1)} , is 1-to-1. So, the elements of \mathcal{H}^{(A+1, B - 1)} are (by definition) symmetric in their (A+1) undotted indices and independently in their (B - 1) dotted indices. Plus, if you apply the operator \Delta \ B-time, you end up in \mathcal{H}^{(A+B , 0)} \equiv \mathcal{H}^{(2s , 0)} whose elements \psi_{\alpha_{1} \cdots \alpha_{2s}} = \psi_{(\alpha_{1} \cdots \alpha_{2s})} (therefore) have (2s + 1) independent components. This simply means (for m \neq 0) that the spaces \mathcal{H}^{(A+B , 0)}, \ \mathcal{H}^{(A+B -1 , 1)}, \cdots , \mathcal{H}^{(0 , A+B)} , are equivalent representation spaces for the Poincare’ group, as they all describe massive spin-s( = \frac{A+B}{2}) field with 2s+1 independent components.

You can also convince yourself by going to a rest frame in momentum space where your operator \Delta = P simply becomes m \delta:

<br /> <br /> P^{\dot{\alpha}_{B}}_{\alpha_{A+1}} \psi_{\alpha_{1}\cdots \alpha_{A}\dot{\alpha}_{1}\cdots \dot{\alpha}_{B}} = m \delta^{\dot{\alpha}_{B}}_{\alpha_{A+1}} \psi_{\alpha_{1}\cdots \alpha_{A}\dot{\alpha}_{1}\cdots \dot{\alpha}_{B}} = m \psi_{\alpha_{1} \cdots \alpha_{A+1}\dot{\alpha}_{1} \cdots \dot{\alpha}_{B-1}} \in \mathcal{H}^{(A+1,B -1)} .<br /> <br />
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K