I'm pretty confused about the motivations behind defining a spin structure on a manifold. Let me explain.

In quantum mechanics, particles are represented by irreducible unitary projective representations of the Poincaré group (i.e. the states that characterize a particle are vectors belonging to a representation of $ SO^+(1,3)$). Knowing that there is a correspondence between the projective representations of a group and the "true" representations of its universal covering group, we are more interested in the "true" representations of the universal covering group (since they are easier to find) of $ SO^+(1,3) $ i.e. $ SL(2, \mathbb{C}) $.

Now let's turn to QFT and consider that our spacetime is characterized by 4-dimensional Lorentzian manifold $ (M,g) $. Particles are therefore characterized by fields $\phi$ defined over $M$ and we naturally expect that for any $x \in M$
$$ \phi(x) \in V $$ where $V$ is a representation space of $ SL(2, \mathbb{C})$. So, if we want to speak in the language of fiber bundle, we expect the fields representing the particles to be sections of a vector bundle $E$ associated to an $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ principal bundle.

So here's my question:

Why do we define a spin structure as:

  • a $SL(2, \mathbb{C})$-principal bundle $P$

  • AND a double covering $\Lambda : P \longrightarrow FM $ where $FM$ is the frame bundle of $M$ i.e. a $SO^+(1,3)$-principal bundle such

$$ \Lambda(pq) = \Lambda(p) \lambda(q)$$ for $q \in SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ and $\lambda: SL(2,\mathbb{C}) \longrightarrow SO^+(1,3) $ the universal covering map.

In other words, why is the second point important? Why can't we just consider any $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$-principal bundle and describe our particles with associated vector bundle?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Excellent question, apart from the minor error I edited. Have you read the famous chapter 13 of Wald? $\endgroup$
    – DanielC
    Nov 18, 2023 at 18:45
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your correction. I did not know this reference but I thank you for having given it to me since it seems to answers my question : « We define spinor by […] specifying their behavior under $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ transformations associated with changes of orthonormal basis » (Wald - General Relativity : p -364/365 ). In practice, we want to see how the fields transform under a change of orthonormal bases. Since we use $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ to make representation theory easier, we need to link our $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$-principal bundle to the orthonormal frame bundle FM. $\endgroup$
    – eomp
    Nov 19, 2023 at 16:58

1 Answer 1


You need the second condition because this $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})$ isn't just a random internal symmetry group (like the gauge groups of Yang-Mills theories, where you indeed just have a $G$-principal bundle without further conditions), it's supposed to be the spacetime symmetry group - the universal cover of the local $\mathrm{SO}(1,3)$-symmetry induced by the pseudo-Riemannian structure of spacetime.

As you correctly stated, we get to wanting representations of $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})$ by considering projective representations of $\mathrm{SO}(1,3)$, and that $\mathrm{SO}(1,3)$ is precisely the $\mathrm{SO}(1,3)$ from the frame bundle. So the manifold already comes with a $\mathrm{SO}(1,3)$-bundle, and of course our $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})$-bundle needs to be compatible with this and the precise meaning of compatibility is exactly that we have the covering map $P\to FM$.

The way an ordinary tensor field transforms under the spacetime symmetry that the $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})$ represents is already fixed by it being the tensor field on this manifold, and one way to state that transformation behavior is by considering both $TM$ and $T^\ast M$ (and their tensor powers) as associated bundles to the frame bundle $FM$. Through the projection $P\to FM$, all those bundles also become associated bundles to $P$ - the action $P$ on them is just projecting down to $FM$ and then using the action of $FM$.

This kind of "attaching" a principal bundle to the tangent/frame bundle of a manifold is called soldering and distinguishes spacetime symmetries from internal symmetries.


Your Answer

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

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