Quantum Fields in Curved Space-times

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition and properties of Quantum Fields in Curved Space-times (CS), contrasting them with fields in flat space-time (Minkowski). Participants explore the implications of curvature on field theory and seek clarification on the mathematical frameworks involved.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that in flat space-time, fields are defined as irreducible representations of the universal covering group SU(2)xSU(2) of SO(4), raising questions about the definition in curved space-times.
  • Another participant suggests using orthonormal frames, describing the tangent bundle as a principal SO(1,3) bundle over spacetime, with fields taking values in this bundle or derived bundles.
  • A participant connects orthonormal frames to tetrads and questions whether fields should be considered as irreducible representations of SU(2)xSU(2) through their contractions with the Vierbein.
  • A later reply emphasizes that for half-integer spin, the concept of "Clifford action" should be considered instead of "contraction."

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriate mathematical framework for defining fields in curved space-times, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain without a consensus.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved aspects regarding the conditions under which curved manifolds admit spinors and the implications of these conditions on the definitions of fields.

MManuel Abad
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Hello, people:

I've been wondering about the definition of Quantum Fields in Curved Space-times (CS). I know that, in flat space-time (Minkowski), the fields are defined as irreducible representations of the universal covering group SU(2)xSU(2) of SO(4) (which is basically the Lorentz group SO(1,3) under a Wick rotation of time).

Nevertheless, in general (that is in CS) your field theory is not invariant under Lorentz transformations. How then are fields defined in CS? Could you explain your answer and give some references, please?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The simplest way is to use orthonormal frames. In this language, the tangent bundle can be thought of as a principal SO(1,3) bundle (or SO(4) after Wick rotation) over spacetime. Then fields take values in this SO(1,3) bundle or in some derived bundle (i.e., other representations of SO(1,3)).

There is some subtlety with spinors, as not all curved manifolds admit spinors (those that do have what is called a "spin structure").
 
Oh! These orthonormal frames are simply the tetrads, aren't they?

So no, instead of asking the fields to be representations of SU(2)xSU(2), we ask their contractions with the Vierbein to be irreps of this group. Is this correct?

Thankyou!
 
Yes, although for half-integer spin you should think "Clifford action" instead of "contraction".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K