2
$\begingroup$

I've recently begun a course in QFT (within a Physics Master's), and despite (admittedly limited) reading I can't get my head round the idea of parity.

Here's what I think I understand: the Minkowski spacetime of (usual) QFTs is an affine, rather than a vector, space. The Lagrangians of QFT have the continuous symmetries of the (proper, orthochronous) Lorentz group $SO^+(1,3)$, so there's no problem expressing QFT using position vectors (i.e. - we have translational invariance).

However, parity is usually expressed as 'changing the sign of the spatial components' - reflecting through an origin. Not only is it a feature of the theory - the chiral spinors $\psi_\pm$ are exchanged by parity, etc. - but it has testable predictions.

What I don't understand is how and where a parity transformation can be made without reference to the origin (and thereby working in a vector space, unlike the theory - and seemingly the Universe). Is there some generalised operator acting within the space of the theory? Is writing $\psi(\vec{x}) \mapsto \psi(-\vec{x})$ merely a notational convenience that expresses the transformation in spinor space of $\psi_{\pm} \mapsto \psi_{\mp}$ (which could be otherwise represented without reference to a vector space)? Does this problem evaporate when considering that the Lorentz group acts on the tangent space to a point, and therefore the space on which the parity transformation acts predicated on a specific point?

These are the kind of ideas I am unable to resolve. Maybe I'm seeing a contradiction where there isn't one, and this can be safely ignored thanks to isomorphisms between the relevant affine/vector spaces or some such feature - but hopefully someone understands my confusion and can point me in the right direction. Thanks!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Just take "parity" to mean the behaviour under the parity transformation in the full Lorentz group $\mathrm{O}(1,3)$, no need to talk about origins. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Nov 5 '15 at 17:04
  • $\begingroup$ I think that's what I was trying to get at in my second question (in the fourth, long paragraph) - so the meaning of $\psi_+(\vec{x}) = \psi_-(\vec{x})$ is that the action of $\hat{P}$ on the object $\psi_-(\vec{x})$ is equivalently either of those two expressions? That it's only when acting with $\hat{P}$ on the position vector $\vec x$ that we need to refer to an origin, which is OK because $\vec x$ itself specifies that origin? I appreciate your response! $\endgroup$ – T. Lawson Nov 5 '15 at 17:24
3
$\begingroup$

Comments to the question (v1):

  1. In this answer let us focus on spatial point reflections and the spatial part of Minkowski spacetime. (There is, by the way, a similar issue with time reversal symmetry $T$.)

  2. A choice of point reflection $P_0$ in affine 3-space inevitable has a fixed point ${\bf r}_0$.

  3. (We can use the restricted Lorentz group to trade a point reflection $P$ to a reflection in a 2-plane, but that would have a fixed 2-plane instead.)

  4. We can use the translation symmetry to trade a point reflection $P_0$ with fixed point ${\bf r}_0$ to a point reflection $P_1$ with fixed point ${\bf r}_1$.

  5. So while a specific choice of point reflection $P_0$ singles out a specific fixed point ${\bf r}_0$ and hence breaks manifest translation symmetry in affine 3-space, the full Poincare group treats the affine 3-space covariantly.

  6. TL;DR: By upgrading from Lorentz group to Poincare group, the potential issue with affine space disappears.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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