Undergrad Transformation of Intrinsic Spin: Does it Transform Like a 4-Vector?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the treatment of intrinsic spin in physics, questioning whether it should be considered a four-vector or a bivector/antisymmetric tensor. The conventional view classifies intrinsic spin as a four-vector, which raises concerns about its compatibility with orbital angular momentum, also treated as a bivector. The argument emphasizes that intrinsic spin, being an axial vector, should transform similarly to orbital angular momentum, suggesting a need for a polar vector counterpart. The complexity of spin in relativistic physics is highlighted, pointing to the necessity of understanding representation theory related to the Poincare group. Ultimately, the conversation calls for a reevaluation of how intrinsic spin is categorized and its implications for combining with other angular momentum forms.
Hiero
Messages
322
Reaction score
68
This question is beyond my level of understanding, nonetheless I feel it can’t be right. I have been studying Geometric algebra and was thinking about (6-component) bivectors in spacetime, (specifically the electromagnetic field and 4D-angular-momentum). The conventional perspective is to treat these bivectors as anti-symmetric second rank tensors. Regardless of perspective, (upon a change of reference frame,) these objects transform in a definite way.

I saw on Wikipedia though that the intrinsic spin is supposedly treated as a four-vector (arbitrarily taking the time component to be zero in the rest frame). This really bothers me because it seems clear that intrinsic spin should also be treated as a bivector/antisymmetric tensor. Spin is an axial vector which hints at its bivector nature. More importantly though, it should add with the orbital angular momentum (which is a bivector/antisymmetric tensor) and hence should transform the same way! Treating it like a four-vector just seems like non-sense!

In order to treat it as a bivector/antisymmetric tensor though we would need three time-like components which form a polar vector corresponding to the axial spin (in the same way that the electric field corresponds to the magnetic field or the “moment of mass” corresponds to the angular momentum). I have no idea what that corresponding polar vector might be.

So I ask you wise scientists; Is it not silly to treat the spin as a four-vector? (How would it combine with the orbital 4D-angular-momentum??) And if Wikipedia is mistaken and it should instead transform like the electromagnetic field, then what is the corresponding polar vector?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not a vector but a spinor, isn’t it. Vectors, more in general tensors, are made of spinors. Not the other way around.
 
Last edited:
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy
In an inertial frame of reference (IFR), there are two fixed points, A and B, which share an entangled state $$ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0>_A|1>_B+|1>_A|0>_B) $$ At point A, a measurement is made. The state then collapses to $$ |a>_A|b>_B, \{a,b\}=\{0,1\} $$ We assume that A has the state ##|a>_A## and B has ##|b>_B## simultaneously, i.e., when their synchronized clocks both read time T However, in other inertial frames, due to the relativity of simultaneity, the moment when B has ##|b>_B##...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
12K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
689
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
7K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K