A Spin group for the Weyl equation

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter topsquark
  • Start date Start date
topsquark
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
MHB
Messages
2,020
Reaction score
843
TL;DR Summary
What is the spin group classification for Weyl particles?
I never considered this until now. Dirac particles have a spin representation of ##(1/2,0) \oplus (0,1/2)##. This represents both parts of the 4-spinor. But what is the representation of Weyl particles? Is it still ##(1/2,0) \oplus (0,1/2)## or is it just (1/2,0), since we have a definite helicity?

Thanks!

-Dan

Addendum: I'm going to add to this. The question about helicity may be a bit of a red herring: the photon is ##(1,0) \oplus (0,1)##, which covers both A and B subAlgebras. But Proca particles are (1/2, 1/2). I'm not sure what to do about the m = 0 case for Dirac particles.
 
  • Like
Likes Greg Bernhardt
Physics news on Phys.org
topsquark said:
TL;DR Summary: What is the spin group classification for Weyl particles?

I never considered this until now. Dirac particles have a spin representation of ##(1/2,0) \oplus (0,1/2)##. This represents both parts of the 4-spinor. But what is the representation of Weyl particles? Is it still ##(1/2,0) \oplus (0,1/2)## or is it just (1/2,0), since we have a definite helicity?

Thanks!

-Dan

Addendum: I'm going to add to this. The question about helicity may be a bit of a red herring: the photon is ##(1,0) \oplus (0,1)##, which covers both A and B subAlgebras. But Proca particles are (1/2, 1/2). I'm not sure what to do about the m = 0 case for Dirac particles.
After pondering some more I think the only conclusion that I can draw is that the Weyl representation of the Poincare Algebra must be ##(1/2,0) \oplus (0.1/2)##, just like the Dirac representation.

Mathematically, the groups A and B are independent, so if the spin representations aren't the same we need to add equivalent (but switched) groups to make it symmetric. The reason the Proca and Maxwell representations are different is due to the fact that the Maxwell representation admits no spin 0 (well, helicity 0) particles, so we need to change it. The spins of the Weyl particles are not actually restricted, they are just fixed to particles/antiparticles. But the m = 0 condition doesn't actually change the wave equation, so it shouldn't change the Lagrangian, so it shouldn't change the representation, either.

I'm not completely satisfied with this answer. My logic chain only works in one direction: I don't know how to derive this result from first principles, but it may simply be that the extra condition on Weyl particles does not affect the representation we are using, which does make some sense to me.

-Dan
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
87
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Back
Top