0

The proof starts with the $\rm SU(2)$ symmetric Lagrangian \begin{equation} \mathcal L=\sum_{r,s=1}^4\frac{1}{2}K_{rs}^0(\xi_r\dot\xi_s-\dot\xi_r\xi_s) \end{equation} where the fields $\xi$ either have integer spin (in which case $K_{rs}^0$ is an anti-symmetric matrix) or half-integer spin (in which case $K_{rs}^0$ is symmetric). The requirement $$[\xi_n,\delta S]=i\delta\xi_n$$ on the variation of the action gives the expression \begin{align*} i\delta\xi_n=\frac{1}{2}\int_\sigma d^3x \sum_{rs}K_{rs}^0(\xi_n\xi_r\delta\xi_s-\xi_n\delta\xi_r\xi_s-\xi_r\delta\xi_s\xi_n+\delta\xi_r\xi_s\xi_n). \end{align*} If $\xi$ is a commuting field, then we can write explicitly \begin{equation*} [\xi_n,\delta S]=\int_\sigma d^3x \sum_s\delta \xi_s(\mathbf x)\left[\xi_n(\mathbf y),\frac{1}{2}\sum_r(K_{rs}^0-K_{sr}^0)\xi_r(\mathbf x)\right]. \end{equation*} Here it is concluded that $K_{rs}^0$ must be anti-symmetric, and therefore the fields that commute are the same as the fields with integer spin. I don't understand this: why must $K_{rs}^0$ be anti-symmetric?

  • 3
    If you're referring to https://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1111, beware that the thing that they're calling the "spin-statistics theorem" is not what most physicists call the spin-statistics theorem. They seem to have recycled the name for something entirely different, and nobody else uses the name that way. Whatever they're doing doesn't involve the spectrum condition or Lorentz symmetry, which are essential conditions for the thing that most of us call the spin-statistics theorem. See What is the spin-statistics theorem in higher dimensions? – Chiral Anomaly Jul 03 '21 at 01:53
  • @ChiralAnomaly Oh really? You are filling me with doubts. I was actually following the lead of this thesis which admittedly isn't the clearest or most well written paper I've seen (no disrespect meant). It is pretty adamant there that the argument is a proof for what I'd call the spin-statistics theorem (fields with integer spin commute, fields with half-integer spin anticommute). Other sources like this presentation also follow the same line. – Balter 90s Jul 03 '21 at 02:37
  • The thesis you linked seems to consider only four-dimensional spacetime, which of course is a relatively important special case :). Sudarshan's approach might be equivalent to the standard one in that special case (I haven't checked this), but they're not equivalent in arbitrary spacetime dimensions, which is what led to the question that I linked. I'm not trying to discourage you from studying Sudarshan's version, just trying to prevent confusion later due to the different meanings of "spin-statistics theorem" in arbitrary dimensions. – Chiral Anomaly Jul 03 '21 at 02:56
  • @ChiralAnomaly Oh, thanks for clarifying that. I don't think there's any danger of getting confused yet - I'm just studying up for an introductory QFT course, where we stay safely within the realm of the four-dimensional theory. By the way, you mention there is a standard version of the proof: could you please provide me a reference for that? A link would be immensely helpful. – Balter 90s Jul 03 '21 at 03:04
  • 1
    I wish I knew a good free online source. Reference 4 in this answer is behind a paywall. The classic reference is the book PCT, Spin and Statistics, and All That, which ironically also focuses on four-dimensional spacetime. For another perspective on the concepts/vocabulary, the paper Spin-Statistics, Spin-Locality, and TCP: Three Distinct Theorems might be helpful. – Chiral Anomaly Jul 03 '21 at 03:40
  • @ChiralAnomaly Thank you! – Balter 90s Jul 03 '21 at 16:05

0 Answers0