Why is gravitino a spin 3/2 particle?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter arroy_0205
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Particle Spin
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the nature of the gravitino as a spin 3/2 particle, particularly in relation to its superpartner, the graviton, which is a spin 2 particle. Participants explore theoretical frameworks, implications for supersymmetry, and the construction of supermultiplets, addressing why higher spin particles are not typically considered.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that there is no known way to construct an interacting theory with massless fields of spin higher than 2, which they argue is significant for practical calculations.
  • Others propose that the gravitino acts as a "gauge connection" for gauged supersymmetry in supergravity, suggesting that it must couple in a Poincare-invariant way as a vector-spinor, which inherently limits its spin to 3/2.
  • One participant draws parallels with fermions and electroweak gauge bosons, arguing that it is simpler to construct supermultiplets with particles and sparticles that follow the s-1/2 scheme rather than s+1/2.
  • Another participant challenges the notion of simplicity in nature, questioning the applicability of this reasoning and referencing the Higgs as a counterexample.
  • There is a discussion about the absence of spin-1 partners for fermions, attributed to the requirement of gauge symmetry for spin-1 particles, which conflicts with the complex representations of fermions.
  • One participant mentions the possibility of generalizing the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) to include vector partners for fermions, although they acknowledge the complexity of such models.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the reasoning behind the spin of the gravitino, with some supporting the simplicity argument while others contest it. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these arguments and the nature of particle interactions.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the construction of interacting theories and the implications of gauge symmetries, but these points remain unresolved within the discussion.

arroy_0205
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
Graviton is a spin 2 particle. Why is its superpartner gravitino a spin 3/2 (2-1/2) particle and not a spin 5/2 (2+1/2) particle?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
one point is that there is no known way to write down an interacting theory with massless fields of spin higher than 2. you might not be impressed by that argument, but it matters if we want to actually calculate anything!

another (perhaps more robust) point is that the gravitino field plays the role of a "gauge connection" for the "gauged supersymmetry" that is supergravity. That is: the gravitino couples to the supercurrent, which is a vector-spinor, and must therefore be a vector-spinor itself if it's to couple in a Poincare-invariant way. Such an object is a combination of spin-1/2 and spin-3/2 fields, no spin-5/2 (and we project out the spin-1/2 in supergravity for physical reasons).
 
Graviton is a spin 2 particle. Why is its superpartner gravitino a spin 3/2 (2-1/2) particle and not a spin 5/2 (2+1/2) particle?
Well we can ask the same question about fermions (1/2-1/2 and not 1/2+1/2) or electroweak gauge bosons..
the point is that it is "simpler" to construct supermultiplets with particles and sparticles that respect this scheme (s-1/2 and not s+1/2).

Think about the Chiral supermultiplet. we have a fermion with two degrees of freedom, so the simplest bosonic thing to add is a complex scalar field..
 
Atakor said:
Well we can ask the same question about fermions (1/2-1/2 and not 1/2+1/2) or electroweak gauge bosons..
the point is that it is "simpler" to construct supermultiplets with particles and sparticles that respect this scheme (s-1/2 and not s+1/2).

Think about the Chiral supermultiplet. we have a fermion with two degrees of freedom, so the simplest bosonic thing to add is a complex scalar field..

I don't agree with this logic. Nowhere does it say nature has to be "simple"! And what about the Higgs, that goes against this rule?

The reason why we don't have spin-1 partners for the fermions is that spin-1 particles have a gauge symmetry associated with them (they HAVE to if you want to satisfy unitary conditions) and gauge particles must be in the adjoint (real) representation. However, the fermions (like the top quark) are in complex representations, so this is a contradiction. This is why the standard model fermion SUSY partners are scalars and not vectors. It has nothing to do with the "easiness" of the model.

Similarly, the only way to couple spin-3/2 is as the "gauge field of local supersymmetry" which requires a graviton, as hinted to above. that's why the gauginos are not spin-3/2 - such a representation cannot have interactions!

That being said: there are ways to generalize the MSSM to have vector partners for the fermions, but they are quite complicated. For example, take a look at http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0386
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K