2
$\begingroup$

On the Lorentz space, particles are axiomatized as unitary projective representations of the Poincaré group (according to Wigner if I recall correctly). It is then possible to specify a (non-charged) particle by its mass and spin (or helicity).

It is said that there is no natural notion of particle in a curved spacetime (eg. here). But then, even without considering a QFT formalism, one can build classical particles of a given spin and mass by considering sections of the suitable fibre bundles constructed from the tangent bundle and some spin structure if need be (see for example Wald's General Relativity for the spinors).

Is there a geometric approach unifying the construction on flat spacetime by studying representations of the isometry group (hence from a quantum perspective), and the construction on curved spacetime that essentially starts from assuming that a particle (or a field) can be specified by a spin (and then a mass)?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Isnt the relation between the two approaches (partially) given by the fact that one still needs to specify a certain representation in the construction of the associated bundle of the Spin bundle? Accordingly I would assume that the bundle approach is the more general one. $\endgroup$
    – NDewolf
    Commented Nov 6, 2019 at 15:18
  • $\begingroup$ In the flat case we are looking for representations of the whole isometry group: the Poincaré group, which are then characterized by representations of the so called little groups. They actually correspond to representations of the whole Lorentz algebra. In the curved case, we consider representations of the Lorentz group as the group acting on local frames as an ad hoc construction. It seems to me that the groups corresponding to the spinor (or vector) representations are introduced in totally different ways. $\endgroup$
    – jpdm
    Commented Nov 6, 2019 at 19:21
  • $\begingroup$ There is a lot of bundle talk in here: golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2009/03/… But it is a bit above my head. $\endgroup$
    – NDewolf
    Commented Nov 6, 2019 at 21:19

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.