Massive spin-s representations of the Poincare group

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the realization of irreducible massive representations of the Poincaré group as spin tensor fields, specifically within the context of the book "Ideas and Methods in Supersymmetry and Supergravity" by I.L. Buchbinder and S.M. Kuzenko. The key points include the definition of the linear space ##\mathcal{H}_{(A,B)}## of spin tensor fields and the application of the one-to-one map ##\Delta_{{\alpha}_{A+1}}^{~~~\dot{\alpha}_B}##. The participants clarify that the result of applying this map retains total symmetry in the undotted indices, confirming the author's claim. The discussion emphasizes the importance of supplementary conditions, particularly condition (2), in establishing this symmetry.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Poincaré group representations
  • Familiarity with spin tensor fields and their properties
  • Knowledge of supplementary conditions in quantum field theory
  • Proficiency in mathematical notation used in theoretical physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of the mass shell condition in quantum field theory
  • Explore the properties of spin tensor fields in the context of the Poincaré group
  • Investigate the role of supplementary conditions in the classification of particle states
  • Learn about the mapping techniques between different representation spaces in quantum mechanics
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, particularly those specializing in quantum field theory, representation theory, and supersymmetry. It is also valuable for graduate students and researchers seeking to deepen their understanding of massive representations of the Poincaré group.

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