- #36
- 5,779
- 174
@hch71: you are right, there is again this strange relation between Poincare and gauge symmetry; for consistency reasons only specific dynamical models are allowed; quantum gauge symmetry is more restrictive than Poincare invariance.
Is this another coincidence? It is interesting that such a consistency condition shows up during regularization at the level of Slavnos-Taylor identities. I would expect an underlying principle (unfortunately unknown) which explains why gauge symmetry adds constraints to Poincare multiplets and why Casimir operators of Poincare symmetry tell something about the construction of gauge symmetries.
Both structrures are related via fiber bundels; Poincare acts on the base space, gauge acts on the fibers. But gauge and Poincare do commute, so the overall symmetry structure is a direct product w/o and relation at the level of Lie groups. Perhaps some unifying principle (SUGRA? strings?) can tell us more about such a hidden principle.
Is this another coincidence? It is interesting that such a consistency condition shows up during regularization at the level of Slavnos-Taylor identities. I would expect an underlying principle (unfortunately unknown) which explains why gauge symmetry adds constraints to Poincare multiplets and why Casimir operators of Poincare symmetry tell something about the construction of gauge symmetries.
Both structrures are related via fiber bundels; Poincare acts on the base space, gauge acts on the fibers. But gauge and Poincare do commute, so the overall symmetry structure is a direct product w/o and relation at the level of Lie groups. Perhaps some unifying principle (SUGRA? strings?) can tell us more about such a hidden principle.
Last edited: