Timeline for Conflicting definitions of a spinor
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 19, 2022 at 8:17 | comment | added | Gere | I'm not familiar with the conventional definitions, but I've come up with another attempt: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/695060/… Is this related? If it is, it would answer questions 2 and 3. | |
| May 28, 2021 at 14:20 | comment | added | iSeeker | Re Question 1, if not seen already, it might be useful to read the Introduction of csusap.csu.edu.au/~pcharlto/charlton_thesis.pdf , (one of the references in the rather dense en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_spinor referenced above by @bolbteppa ). After acknowledging the minimal left ideal definition, Charlton points out that all spinors are pure for n <= 6, and in particular that “Since all spinors are pure in [Lorentzian spacetime], there has been no need to introduce pure spinors as a separate concept. They are implicit in Penrose’s notion of ‘flag planes’…” Hope this helps. | |
| May 27, 2021 at 18:19 | vote | accept | eigenchris | ||
| May 27, 2021 at 16:10 | history | edited | eigenchris | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| May 27, 2021 at 14:25 | history | edited | eigenchris | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| May 27, 2021 at 9:46 | comment | added | bolbteppa | The Lounesto references giving spinors as minimal left ideals for Pauli and Dirac spinors. From reading these short sections the answer to your Q3 should be clear - we act with e.g. left multiplication on the ideal for the exact same reason that we multiply a column spinor by a (gamma) matrix on the left in usual matrix multiplication. | |
| May 27, 2021 at 4:39 | answer | added | Chiral Anomaly | timeline score: 5 | |
| May 26, 2021 at 21:17 | comment | added | Andrew Steane | Maybe this will help: arxiv.org/abs/1312.3824 | |
| May 26, 2021 at 19:13 | answer | added | MadMax | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 26, 2021 at 18:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1397613535212052485 | ||
| May 26, 2021 at 16:51 | comment | added | bolbteppa | It seems that in the null vector perspective the starting point is defining a spinor as a pure spinor, the wiki mentions how to get from the 'Clifford module' perspective to this 'pure' perspective. Since (as the wiki says) in low dimensions every spinor is pure this apparently doesn't cause a problem in 3D (do they form a vector space?). Sources such as this (see the start of the abstract) indicating that this is what is going on. | |
| May 26, 2021 at 16:16 | comment | added | eigenchris | @NiharKarve That's me. Alas, I don't understand spinors as well as I understand tensors. | |
| May 26, 2021 at 16:08 | comment | added | Nihar Karve | Are you the eigenchris? I loved your tensor calculus series! | |
| May 26, 2021 at 16:04 | history | edited | eigenchris | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 275 characters in body
|
| May 26, 2021 at 15:38 | history | asked | eigenchris | CC BY-SA 4.0 |