I've been referring to Pg.36-Pg.38 in Introduction to Supersymmetry by Wiedamann. For understanding the precise origin of dotted, undotted indices on Spinors. He starts off my saying that $M$ acts on $\Psi$ as a representation on the spinor space.He says, that a spinor $\Psi_A$ transforms as $$\Psi_A = M_A^B\psi_B$$ under a rep $M$ of $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$. Then he proves that $M^{-1T}$ is an equivalent representation to $M$. He introduces the standard lowering and raising $\epsilon$ through this. And shows that, $\psi^A \equiv \epsilon^{AB}\psi_B$ is an object that transforms in the $M^{-1T}$ and therefore, we give it a new notation of contra variant index, $$\Psi^A = (M^{-1T})^{A}_B\Psi^A$$ So far everything is fine. But on Pg.39, he writes $$\psi^A \equiv \epsilon^{AB}\psi_B = -\psi_B\epsilon^{BA}$$ I'm unclear with how the second part come that is, $-\psi_B\epsilon^{BA}$. I know $\epsilon$ is anti-symmetric but, what is the need for changing the order? Why not $-\epsilon^{BA}\psi_B$?

Understanding the Spinors as Mathematical Objects

Now, I know that there is a very uncanny resemblance of a metric and $\epsilon$ here. I fail to see the exact connection. It does the same role as raising and lower indices. Namely, from a $\mathbb{R}^4$ manifold point of view, I know that the metric gives a notion of distance for vectors in the tangent space $T_p(\mathcal{M})$ of a manifold $\mathcal{M}$. Therefore, it makes sense to write $g_{\mu\nu} x^\nu x^\nu$, for vector which are labeled as $x_\nu$ and $x_\mu$ in a basis. FOR CONVIENCE (I hope I'm right with this), we choose to write $g_{\mu\nu}x^\nu \equiv x_\mu$ as column vector to have an easy way of having the action of duals on its space.

Similarly. I'm guessing the whole point of $\epsilon$ is a notion of distance on the spinor space with a spinor vector whose components labeled by $\psi_A$. And $\epsilon^{AB}\psi_A\psi_B$ gives a notion of distance on this space. In which case, I dont' see why not $-\epsilon^{BA}\psi_B =- \psi_B\epsilon^{BA}$. As they are just some numbers. I would like to know if this is what we do. Probably, someone with the whole picture of a supermanifold and metrics on it can explain me the relation between these.Because, the fact that we consider these labels $\Psi_A$ and $\Psi_B$ to be anti-commuting $\{\Psi_A,\Psi_B\} =0$ seems to suggest to be that these are Grassmann numbers on superspace if I'm not wrong.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't think you need to change the order, it just "looks better" when the contracted indices are next to each other. That is, aesthetically, $\psi_B\epsilon^{BA}$ is preferable to $\epsilon^{BA}\psi_B$. I'm not 100% sure, just keep this in mind. $\endgroup$ – Ryan Unger Mar 11 '16 at 14:22
  • $\begingroup$ Here $\epsilon^{BA}$ is a matrix acting on $\psi_B$. I think it is completely relevant to consider the order. $\endgroup$ – Sai krishna Deep Mar 11 '16 at 14:29
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, this is some strange convention. Normally, $\epsilon^{AB}$ is as much of a matrix as $T_{ab}$ or $R_{ab}$ is. $\endgroup$ – Ryan Unger Mar 11 '16 at 15:03

This is purely for aesthetics.

Following Wald, we have a 2-dimensional vector space $W$ over $\mathbb{C}$. The spinors are elements of $W$ and furnish a rep of $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})$. The antisymmetric tensor $\epsilon_{AB}$ gives an isomorphism $W\to W^*$, the dual space. Note that nothing we do here depends on the special linear group or anticommuting variables. The indices $A,B,$ etc. are to be understood in the abstract sense.

Given $\psi^A\in W$ we associate to it $\psi_A\in W^*$ by $\psi_B=\epsilon_{AB}\psi^A=-\epsilon_{BA}\psi^A$. In the other direction, we assign $\psi^A$ to $\psi_A$ by $\psi^A=\epsilon^{AB}\psi_B=-\epsilon^{BA}\psi_B=-\psi_B\epsilon^{BA}$. Since these are just tensors, everything commutes in the abstract index notation. There are no "matrices" here.

In Riemannian geometry, we have a vector $v^a$, a metric $g_{ab}$ and an associated covector $v_a$. Then $v^a=g^{ab}v_b=g^{ba}v_b=v_bg^{ba}$. This process is entirely analogous, modulo a sign.

  • $\begingroup$ Ok, thanks for this. I'll have a look at Wald on its reference to Spinors. But the other part of the question is still unanswered. $\endgroup$ – Sai krishna Deep Mar 12 '16 at 9:25

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.