Spin 3/2 fields & Rarita-Schwinger

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gazebo_dude
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fields Spin
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on constructing spin 3/2 representations of the Lorentz group using vector-spinors as described by the Rarita-Schwinger equations. The author, Michael, questions the preference for Rarita-Schwinger's approach over the (3/2,0)+(0,3/2) representation, which utilizes symmetric spin indices. He suggests that the latter may not have issues with projecting out undesired degrees of freedom and seeks insights into any existing literature or problems associated with this theory. The conversation highlights the lack of published work on these representations and hints at potential gauge invariance considerations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Rarita-Schwinger equations
  • Familiarity with Lorentz group representations
  • Knowledge of spinor indices and index manipulation
  • Basic concepts of gauge invariance in field theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of gauge invariance in Rarita-Schwinger versus Pauli-Fierz formulations
  • Explore existing literature on spin 3/2 representations in quantum field theory
  • Study the mathematical framework of symmetric spin indices in particle physics
  • Investigate computational techniques for deriving Lagrangian terms for spin 3/2 fields
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, particularly those specializing in quantum field theory, particle physics, and the study of spinor representations within the Lorentz group.

gazebo_dude
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Hi all and merry christmas,

I've been wondering about how to construct spin 3/2 reps of the Lorentz group. The way I've seen it done is with vector-spinors ala the Rarita-Schwinger equations: \psi_{a\mu}, \mu being a 4-vector index and a being a (bi)spinor index. Then a reduction is made by projecting out 8 of the 16 degrees of freedom leaving 4 particle+4 antiparticle. This corresponds to the group theory ((1/2,0)+(0,1/2))x(1/2,1/2)=(1,1/2)+(0,1/2)+(1/2,0)+(1/2,1). The desired bits are (1,1/2)+(1/2,1).

My question is: why not just use the (3/2,0)+(0,3/2) rep? The fields can be represented as objects having three symmetric spin indices: \psi_{abc} for the left handed and \bar{\xi}^{\dot{a}\dot{b}\dot{c}} for the right handed. I haven't tried any computations yet, but a Lagrangian kinetic term might look something like \bar{\psi}^{\dot{a}\dot{b}\dot{c}} i\partial^{a}_{\dot{a}} \psi_{abc} \eta^{bc}_{\dot{b}\dot{c}} where the derivative and metric are in terms of spinor indices and index gymnastics have been done with abandon. There are certainly no issues with projecting out undesired degrees of freedom.

I haven't seen anything like this for spin 3/2 particles before. Has it been tried? Are there any well known problems with this theory?

Cheers,
Michael
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As you can see on <Google>, there's very little published literature on the 2 representations you mention. I don't know a reason why Rarita-Schwinger's version prevailed over Pauli-Fierz's version of the field. It could have something to do with gauge invariance, I'm venturing on unknown territory...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K