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

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Hiero
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spin Transformation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the transformation properties of intrinsic spin in the context of relativistic physics, specifically whether it should be treated as a four-vector or as a bivector/antisymmetric tensor. Participants explore the implications of these perspectives on the combination of spin with orbital angular momentum and the nature of spin in geometric algebra.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion over the treatment of intrinsic spin as a four-vector, arguing it should instead be considered a bivector/antisymmetric tensor due to its axial vector nature and its relationship with orbital angular momentum.
  • Another participant suggests that understanding spin requires knowledge of the representation theory of the proper orthochronous Poincare group, indicating a complexity in the topic.
  • A different viewpoint posits that spin should be classified as a spinor rather than a vector or tensor, suggesting a hierarchical relationship where spinors form the basis of vectors and tensors.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach a consensus on the classification of intrinsic spin, with multiple competing views presented regarding its nature and transformation properties.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of vectors, spinors, and tensors in this context, as well as the implications of treating spin as a bivector versus a four-vector.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying relativistic physics, geometric algebra, or the mathematical foundations of spin and angular momentum in theoretical physics.

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   Reactions: weirdoguy

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
12K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
965
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
8K