Ab Initio Construction of Poincaré and AdS Particles

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2311.08712
• Title: Ab Initio Construction of Poincaré and AdS Particles
• Author: TaeHwan Oh (Korea Institute for Advanced Study, Kyung Hee University)
• Classification: hep-th (High Energy Physics - Theory)
• Publication Date: November 2023 (arXiv preprint, fourth version October 14, 2025)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.08712

Abstract

This paper investigates the construction of explicitly covariant worldline actions from coadjoint orbits, which are submanifolds in the dual vector space of a Lie algebra generated by coadjoint action. Since coadjoint orbits are symplectic spaces, the author derives worldline particle actions from the symplectic two-form. A key challenge in constructing worldline particle actions from coadjoint orbits is selecting coordinate systems that adequately reveal particle physics properties. The author introduces Hamiltonian constraints through the defining conditions of the isometry group, enabling the formulation of explicitly covariant worldline actions. This method is verified for massive and massless particles in Minkowski and AdS spacetimes.

Research Background and Motivation

1. Problems to be Addressed:
   • Lack of systematic methods for constructing worldline actions for various particles in different spacetimes
   • Traditional approaches lack unified theoretical frameworks when handling spinning particles
   • Need for a construction method that naturally produces explicitly covariant actions
2. Importance of the Problem:
   • Worldline particle actions have important applications across physics, including quantum field theory and gravitational theory
   • Classical description of spinning particles has been a central topic in theoretical physics since the 1920s
   • Modern supersymmetry-based methods, while successful, lack systematicity
3. Limitations of Existing Methods:
   • Traditional supersymmetric approaches depend on specific supersymmetric structures
   • Lack of unified frameworks for treating different spacetime backgrounds
   • Coordinate system choices are often ad hoc, lacking geometric motivation
4. Research Motivation:
   • The orbit method provides a systematic pathway to obtain unitary irreducible representations through quantization of coadjoint orbits
   • The symplectic structure of coadjoint orbits naturally leads to action formulations
   • Geometric methods achieve explicit covariance

Core Contributions

1. Proposed a systematic construction method for worldline actions based on coadjoint orbits
2. Developed techniques for introducing Hamiltonian constraints through isometry group defining conditions
3. Achieved unified description of massive/massless spinning particles in Poincaré and AdS spacetimes
4. Established correspondence between stabilizer algebras and first-class constraints
5. Provided mathematical tools for transforming antisymmetric matrices to symplectic matrices

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Given a coadjoint orbit O_φ of Lie group G, construct the corresponding explicitly covariant worldline particle action such that it:

• Possesses appropriate physical degrees of freedom
• Satisfies relativistic covariance
• Correctly describes particle mass and spin properties

Core Theoretical Framework

1. Coadjoint Orbit Foundations

For Lie group G, the coadjoint action is defined as:

⟨Ad*_g φ, X⟩ = ⟨φ, Ad_{g^{-1}} X⟩

The coadjoint orbit is:

O_φ = {ψ ∈ g* | Ad*_g φ = ψ, g ∈ G}

2. KKS Symplectic Form

Coadjoint orbits naturally possess the KKS (Kirillov-Kostant-Souriau) symplectic form:

ω_φ(ad*_X φ, ad*_Y φ) = ⟨φ, [X,Y]⟩

3. Worldline Action Construction

The basic action form is:

S = ∫ ⟨φ, g^{-1}dg⟩

Explicit Covariantization Techniques

SO(2,d-1) Case

1. Basic Action:

   S[X] = ∫ tr(φX^{-1}dX)
   

2. Constraint Introduction: Utilizing the defining condition of SO(2,d-1): X^T ηX = η
3. Covariant Action:

   S[X,A] = ∫ [φ_{ab}X^c_b dX^a_c + A_{ab}(X^c_b η_{cd}X^d_a - η_{ba})]
   

4. Symplectic Matrix Transformation: Transform antisymmetric matrix φ_ to symplectic form

   φ_{ab} = T^α_a Ω^{αβ} T^β_b
   

ISO(1,d-1) Case

Similarly handle the Poincaré group, distinguishing non-homogeneous part φ_I and homogeneous part φ_H:

S[x,Λ,A] = ∫ [p_a dx^a + Ω_{αβ}Σ^c_β dΣ^α_c + constraint terms]

Stabilizer Analysis Method

Determine the stabilizer algebra by solving linear equations:

⟨φ, [X,Y]⟩ = 0, ∀Y ∈ g

For the Poincaré group, this yields:

B_{ab} η_{ac} α_b = 0
2B_{ab}(η_{ac} β_{bd} - η_{ad} β_{bc}) - A_a(η_{ac} α_d - η_{ad} α_c) = 0

Experimental Setup

Research Objects

This paper primarily analyzes three classes of concrete particles:

1. Poincaré Massive Particles: φ = mP_0 + sJ_{12}
2. Poincaré Massless Particles: φ = EP_+ + sJ_{12}
3. AdS Particles: φ = mJ_{0'0} + sJ_{12}

Analysis Methods

• Stabilizer algebra computation
• Coadjoint orbit dimension analysis
• Constraint structure investigation
• First-class constraint identification

Main Results

Poincaré Particle Results

Massive Scalar Particle

• Representative Element: φ_I = mP_0
• Stabilizer Algebra: g_{φ_I} = Span{P_0, J_}
• Orbit Dimension: 2(d-1)-dimensional
• Action:

  S = ∫ [p_μ dx^μ + (e/2)(p^2 + m^2)]
  

Massive Spinning Particle

• Representative Element: φ = mP_0 + sJ_{12}
• Stabilizer Algebra: g_φ = Span{P_0, J_{12}, J_{μν}}
• Orbit Dimension: 2(2d-4)-dimensional
• First-Class Constraints: p^2 + m^2 ≈ 0, π^2 + s^2χ^2 ≈ 2s^2

Massless Particles

• Stabilizer Algebra: Contains more generators, corresponding to smaller orbits
• Characteristic: Nilpotent orbit

AdS Particle Results

AdS Massive Particles (m ≠ s)

• Representative Element: φ = mJ_{0'0} + sJ_{12}
• Stabilizer Algebra: g_φ = Span{J_{0'0}, J_{12}, J_}
• Orbit Dimension: 2(2d-4)-dimensional

AdS Massless Particles (m = s)

• Representative Element: φ' = s(J_{0'0} + J_{12})
• Larger Stabilizer Algebra, corresponding to smaller orbits
• Orbit Dimension: 2(2d-5)-dimensional

Key Findings

1. Dual Correspondence: Structural correspondence exists between stabilizer algebras and first-class constraints
2. Dimension Matching: Coadjoint orbit dimensions perfectly align with physical phase space dimensions
3. Unified Framework: The same method applies to different spacetime backgrounds and particle types

Related Work

Historical Development

• 1920s: Frenkel et al. first proposed classical description of electrons
• Late 1970s: Modern supersymmetry-based methods developed (Gershun-Tkach, Casalbuoni, et al.)
• 1960s-70s: Kirillov et al. developed orbit method theory

Comparison of Existing Methods

• Supersymmetric Methods: Successful but dependent on specific structures
• Geometric Methods: Work by Lyakhovich, Segal, Sharapov, et al.
• Orbit Method Applications: Contributions by Duval-Horvathy, Andrzejewski, et al.

Advantages of This Work

• Provides systematic construction framework
• Naturally implements explicit covariance
• Unifies treatment of different spacetime backgrounds

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Successfully established a systematic construction method for worldline actions based on coadjoint orbits
2. Achieved explicit covariance through Hamiltonian constraint techniques
3. Verified deep correspondence between stabilizer algebras and constraint structures
4. Provided unified theoretical description for Poincaré and AdS particles

Limitations

1. Scope of Application: Primarily limited to classical level; quantization requires further investigation
2. Computational Complexity: For more complex spin structures, calculations become quite involved
3. Physical Interpretation: Physical meaning of certain mathematical structures requires further clarification

Future Directions

1. Extended Applications: Generalization to dS spacetime, twistor groups, Galilean symmetry, etc.
2. Quantization: Study quantization of coadjoint orbits
3. Interactions: Consider worldline description of particle interactions
4. Supersymmetric Extensions: Combine orbit methods with supergroups

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Innovation:
   • First systematic application of orbit method to worldline action construction
   • Clever implementation of explicit covariance through isometry group constraints
   • Established deep connection between stabilizer algebras and physical constraints
2. Mathematical Rigor:
   • Provides complete proofs for antisymmetric to symplectic matrix transformations
   • Stabilizer analysis method is systematic and operationalizable
   • All calculations include detailed mathematical derivations
3. Unification:
   • Single framework handles massive/massless particles
   • Applicable to different spacetime backgrounds
   • Naturally incorporates spin degrees of freedom
4. Physical Insight:
   • Reveals deep connections between geometric structures and physical properties
   • Explains why specific constraints naturally emerge
   • Provides new perspective for understanding particle classification

Shortcomings

1. Computational Complexity:
   • For high-spin or complex symmetries, calculations become extremely involved
   • Stabilizer analysis requires solving large linear equation systems
2. Limited Physical Applications:
   • Primarily remains at classical level
   • Connection to standard quantum field theory requires further development
   • Numerical methods in practical calculations not addressed
3. Clarity of Presentation:
   • Certain mathematical concepts may be overly abstract for physicists
   • Correspondence with traditional particle physics notation needs more explanation

Impact Assessment

1. Academic Contribution:
   • Provides new mathematical tools for particle physics
   • May inspire research methods in related fields
   • Possesses strong theoretical value
2. Practical Value:
   • Provides systematic method for constructing novel particle models
   • May find applications in string theory and gravitational theory
   • Offers new computational framework for numerical relativity
3. Reproducibility:
   • Methodology is clear and easily applicable to other systems
   • Mathematical derivations are complete, facilitating verification and extension

Applicable Scenarios

1. Theoretical Physics Research: Construction of new particle models and actions
2. Mathematical Physics: Study of connections between Lie group representation theory and physics
3. Computational Physics: Development of new numerical methods and algorithms
4. High Energy Physics: Understanding geometric properties and symmetries of particles

References

The paper cites extensive related work, including:

• Foundational work on orbit method (Kirillov, Kostant, Souriau)
• Development of worldline formalism (Bastianelli, Schubert, et al.)
• Classical description of spinning particles (Gershun-Tkach, Casalbuoni, et al.)
• Poincaré group representation theory (Wigner, Bargmann, et al.)

This paper provides a novel and systematic theoretical framework for worldline particle physics. While practical applications remain to be developed, its theoretical innovation and unifying nature make it an important contribution to the field.