Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am going through Tong's lecture notes on String Theory and came across the following irrep decomposition (Chap 2, p.43) of the bosonic string first excited states:

$$\text{traceless symmetric} \oplus \text{anti-symmetric} \oplus \underbrace{\text{singlet}}_{=\text{trace}}$$

He then goes on and claims that the traceless symmetric tensor is the spin-2 graviton.

What is the reason behind that claim? Is there a relationship between degrees of freedom and the spin of a particle in any number of dimensions? I remember from the $SU(2)$ irrep decomposition that the $\ell=1$ irrep has 3 d.o.f. just like a massive spin-1 particle would have. But what about massless particles living in 26 dimensions?

share|cite|improve this question
2  
Well, the graviton must couple to the totally symmetric rank-2 stress energy tensor, so it must be rank/spin-2, and an anti-symmetric part won't contribute when the Lorentz indexes are contracted with the symmetric stress energy tensor. – innisfree May 23 '13 at 18:11
    
    
@innisfree, the question is actually raised in the context of light-cone quantisation, so the indices are not really Lorentzian. – Peter Kravchuk May 23 '13 at 23:01
    
In fact, it is an interesting question. Naively, $SO(24)$ corresponds to $D_{12}$ simple Lie algebra, and should have a plethora of inequivalent representations, which cannot be labeled by a single number in an obvious way. Probably, all (corresponding to vector reps of the group, leave spinors alone) arise from tensoring the fundamental rep, hence the "spin-.." names. It would be wonderfull if someone could answer this properly. – Peter Kravchuk May 23 '13 at 23:11
1  
In a $D$ dimensional space-time, a massless particle is a representation of $SO(D - 2)$. The graviton corresponds to the symmetric traceless representation of $SO(D - 2)$ which has dimension $\frac{D(D - 3)}{2}$ – Trimok May 25 '13 at 11:06

The spin $s$ of a particle characterizes how the rotation generators act on it. In $D$ dimensions, you represent the little group $SO(D-1)$ for massive particles and $SO(D-2)$ for massless ones. In fact, you really need to consider its universal cover $\textrm{Spin}(n)$ which happen to be just its double cover.

Now, you can define the spin to be the largest real $s$ such that $$ \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2i\pi}{s}J\right) = \rm{id} $$ where $J$ is any generator in your representation. This is basically the statement that, to return to identity, you need to do a $4\pi$ rotation for spin $\frac{1}{2}$, a $2\pi$ for spin 1, a $\pi$ for spin 2... Note that because the universal cover is the double cover, $s$ has to be a half-integer.

It is clear that Lorentz vectors have spin 1. Let's take a symmetric 2-tensor $T_{\mu\nu}$. It transforms as $T'_{\alpha\beta} = R^{\:\,\mu}_{\alpha}R^{\:\,\nu}_{\beta}T_{\mu\nu}$, where $R = \mathrm{exp}(i\theta J)$ are the usual $SO(n)$ matrices. Infinitesimally, \begin{align} \delta T_{\alpha\beta} & = i\theta(J^{\:\,\mu}_{\alpha}\delta^{\:\,\nu}_\beta + J^{\:\,\nu}_{\beta}\delta^{\:\,\mu}_\alpha)T_{\mu\nu} \\ & = 2 i\theta J^{\:\,\mu}_{\alpha}T_{\mu\beta} \\ \end{align} where the symmetry of the tensor is crucial. Now, because $\mathrm{exp}(2i\pi J) = 1$, you see that for $\theta = \pi$, you get back to identity. This is spin 2!

You can generalize this to show that traceless symmetric n-tensors are spin n. You need them to be traceless because you want irreducible representations. With this, it shouldn't be too hard to derive the degrees of freedom of a spin $s$ particle in $D$ dimensions e.g. for the graviton, it is $D(D-3)/2$.

share|cite|improve this answer
    
Thanks for this answer. The field strength $F$ also transforms with $F'_{\alpha \beta}=R_\alpha^\mu R_\beta^\nu F_{\mu \nu}$, correct? So why does this train of logic not also mean that $F$ is spin-2? – Rococo Apr 18 at 1:32
    
You are right for the transformation law. $F$ is not spin 2 because it is antisymmetric. The variation of the two indices don't add up as for symmetric tensors. Thus, $F$ has to be considered as a spin 1 field. – Victor Godet Apr 18 at 7:15
    
Okay, so that lets you exchange the indices in $T$. Thank you! – Rococo Apr 18 at 14:08

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.