Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1306.4645

Elko Spinor Fields and Massive Magnetic Like Monopoles

E. Capelas de Oliveira·W. A. Rodrigues Jr.·J. Vaz Jr
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In this paper we recall that by construction Elko spinor fields of {\lambda} and {\rho} types satisfy a coupled system of first order partial differential equations (csfopde) that once interacted leads to Klein-Gordon equations for the {\lambda} and {\rho} type fields. Since the csfopde is the basic one and since the Klein-Gordon equations for {\lambda} and {\rho} possess solutions that are not solutions of the csfopde for {\lambda} and {\rho} we infer that it is legitimate to attribute to those fields mass dimension 3/2 (as is the case of Dirac spinor fields) and not mass dimension 1 as previously suggested in recent literature (see list of references). A proof of this fact is offered by deriving the csfopde for the {\lambda} and {\rho} from a Lagrangian where these fields have indeed mass dimension 3/2. Taking seriously the view that Elko spinor fields due to its special properties given by their bilinear invariants may be the description of some kind of particles in the real world a question then arises: what is the physical meaning of these fields? Here we proposed that the fields {\lambda} and {\rho} serve the purpose of building the fields K and M (see Eq.(38))which are Clifford valued multiform fields representing spinor fields in the Clifford bundle. They are electrically neutral and do not couple to the electromagnetic field but carry magnetic like charges which permit them to couple to a su(2) valued potential. If the potential is of short range the particles described by the K and M fields may be interacting and forming condensates of zero spin particles analogous to dark matter, in the sense that they do not couple with the electromagnetic field (generated by charged particles) and are thus invisible. We calculate the correct propagators for the K and M fields. We discuss also the main difference between Elko and Majorana spinor fields.

Explore related subjects

math-phhep-thmath.MP

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

E. Capelas de Oliveira, W. A. Rodrigues Jr., J. Vaz Jr. 2013-06-19. Elko Spinor Fields and Massive Magnetic Like Monopoles. https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4645

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Why we should condition denoising diffusion generative models on windows of past observations

Data assimilation (DA) is, traditionally, a cycling process that relies on time-dependent priors to propagate information from past observations to future cycles. Using denoising diffusion generative modeling for DA is challenging because standard approaches use a fixed training data set, which in turn leads to a static prior that ignores information from past observations. Because past observations are ignored, DA systems with static priors lead to larger posterior errors than cycling DA systems. Incorporating time-dependent priors into generative models, however, requires expensive and frequent retraining. Motivated by linear systems theory - where the dependence of a prediction of a Kalman filter on past observations decays exponentially - we condition diffusion models on short windows of past observations. Specifically, we describe training procedures for two frameworks: a diffusion DA system predicting the current state given a set of past observations, and a diffusion ``direct observation prediction'' (DOP) system, predicting future observations given a set of past observations. Using a canonical linear system, we show that both systems can achieve the minimal posterior error characteristic of a fully-cycled DA/DOP system, without re-training, provided the time windows are long enough. The linear setup ensures analytical tractability, avoids confounding neural network training errors, and confirms that conditioning on windows of past observations is required for efficient and accurate diffusion-based DA or DOP.

math-ph↗
arXiv2026

The kinematic structures and the inertial geometry of a moving charge

We ask how much of the geometry a charged particle moves in is fixed by its motion, and how much a particle must bring. We ask of a symplectic structure only that it relate velocity to momentum as Hamilton's equations do, and we ask it of every energy at once. In particular, we show that the structures meeting that demand are the canonical one and its twists by a closed two-form of the base. A field provides the two-form, a particle the multiplier before it, which we identify constitutively with its charge. Thus, a single energy governs a family of structures, and each particle takes the one its charge fixes. We then ask what a particle must bring to be given a momentum, and we show that the degree of that map settles the degree at which a field enters Newton's Second Law. An antisymmetric bilinear form returns no Lorentz force, whilst a Randers metric returns one --- a length whose difference from a Riemannian one is linear in the velocity. Moreover, we find that metric already within the twisted structure, as its primitive over a level of the free energy, and its law of transport to be nonlinear, no affine connection being known to serve. Under an indefinite signature the length parts from the dynamics, and the extremals turn from shortest to longest. On the round sphere a monopole flux leaves no such metric, whilst the transport remains and prequantisation, given a unit of action, restricts the charge to a lattice. In this manner, we conclude that each charge-to-mass ratio receives a geometry of its own, so that by a functionalist criterion none of them is the spacetime of a charged particle.

math-ph↗