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
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the transformation properties of intrinsic spin in the context of relativistic physics, specifically questioning its treatment as a four-vector. Participants argue that intrinsic spin should be viewed as a bivector or antisymmetric tensor, similar to orbital angular momentum, due to its axial vector nature. The conversation highlights the necessity of understanding the representation theory of the proper orthochronous Poincare group to grasp the complexities of spin. The consensus is that treating spin as a four-vector is incorrect and that a corresponding polar vector needs to be identified.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Geometric Algebra
  • Familiarity with antisymmetric tensors and bivectors
  • Knowledge of the Poincare group in relativistic physics
  • Basic concepts of angular momentum in quantum mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the representation theory of the proper orthochronous Poincare group
  • Study the properties and transformations of bivectors in spacetime
  • Explore the relationship between intrinsic spin and orbital angular momentum
  • Examine the Pauli–Lubanski pseudovector and its implications in quantum mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, particularly those specializing in quantum mechanics and relativistic physics, as well as students and researchers interested in the mathematical foundations of spin and angular momentum.

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
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
12K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
715
  • · 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