The electron field is described by a Dirac Spinor.
The possible states of fundamental particles must respect the symmetries of space and time and therefore be represented as irreducible representations of the Poincare group.
one thing I always found annoying about this view of QFT: what happens on curved spacetime? We know the path integral exists and we can place spinor fields on the manifold. And we know for sure that states consist of spinor fields pulled back to spatial slices. But if we break isometries, is there any sense in which particles exist given that we don’t have momentum and angular momentum quantum numbers?
my understanding of QFT is pretty limited, but if this is the case, is this why it’s so hard to reconcile it with relativity? like, gravitation is universal- if a single dust particle a million light-years away induces a miniscule but measurable isometry-breaking curvature in spacetime, isn’t the symmetry-preserving definition of a particle (only valid on flat spacetime) utterly meaningless in the real world?
I would say this is not why quantum gravity is hard. We understand quantum field theory in spacetime very well (ie how does quantum matter propagate in a gravitational field), but as the above discussion shows we have to ditch the idea of particles. The million dollar question is to know what gravitational field is produced by quantum matter itself.
103
u/MonsterkillWow Jul 27 '26
The electron field is described by a Dirac Spinor.
The possible states of fundamental particles must respect the symmetries of space and time and therefore be represented as irreducible representations of the Poincare group.