3

My understanding is that when it comes to the correspondence between representation theory and particle physics, every irreducible representation of the Poincare group has a corresponding fundamental particle.

My questions are as follows:

  1. are all of the currently known fundamental particles predicted to exist by this correspondence idea?

  2. does the traditional $ISO(3,1)$ Poincare group/algebra predict the existence of supersymmetric particles? If not, what superalgebra is needed?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
the_photon
  • 1,427
  • Related? https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/224812/why-are-one-particle-states-called-irreducible-representations-of-poincar%C3%A9-group , https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100844/representations-of-the-poincare-group – SRS May 31 '20 at 15:36
  • 2
    To clarify: Wigner's classification doesn't predict the existence of particles. It only classifies whatever particles happen to exist. Can questions 1 and 2 be re-worded in a way that still makes sense after that clarification? (For example, 1. do all of the currently known fundamental particles respect Wigner's classification?) – Chiral Anomaly May 31 '20 at 15:49

1 Answers1

2

  1. No, the Poincare symmetry only predicts relationships between different inertial frames.

  2. Again no. One would need a supersymmetric extension of the Poincare group.

Qmechanic
  • 201,751