Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 33 references

Zero mass as a Borel structure

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that whether a particle is massive or massless is determined by whether its stabilizer is the compact point fixgroup SO(3) or the solvable line fixgroup Borel subgroup of the Lorentz group.

desk verdict The Borel-subgroup construction is real and the parameterization checks out, but the paper's central claim rests on replacing Wigner's point stabilizer with a line stabilizer, and that replacement is an unargued assumption rather than a derived result. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12079 v2 pith:F7D7BSRV submitted 2025-06-07 physics.gen-ph

Rein Saar , Stefan Groote This is my paper
classification physics.gen-ph MSC 22E7022E4617B10 PACS 02.20.Qs03.65.Ge
keywords BorelsubgroupLorentzgroupmasslessparticleshelicitylittlesolvableLiealgebraSL(2R)Wignerclassification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to show that masslessness is the solvable half of Lorentz symmetry. For a massive particle the Lorentz group fixes the rest-frame momentum and the stabilizer is the rotation group SO(3); for a massless particle the paper argues that the correct stabilizer is the stabilizer of a light-like line, which is the Borel subgroup Bor_{1,3} of the Lorentz group, the maximal connected solvable subgroup. Solving the character equation on a light-like vector produces Bor_{1,3} explicitly, and its helicity states appear as common eigenvectors of the two sol_2 components of the Borel algebra. If this is right, the physical difference between massive and massless particles is not an extra property but a consequence of choosing compact semisimple versus noncompact solvable symmetry.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Borel subgroup Bor_{1,3} of the Lorentz group, defined as the maximal connected solvable subgroup. The argument runs through the character equation on a light-like vector, whose solutions form the Borel subgroup as a semidirect product of the unipotent radical (two translational generators) and the maximal torus SO_0(1,1)×SO(2). The load-bearing algebraic tool is the Kronecker-sum decomposition bor_{1,3} = sol_2(e) ⊞ sol_2(f), which turns the Borel algebra into two copies of the two-dimensional solvable algebra sol_2; the common eigenvectors of each copy give helicity states. Lemma 6.1 extends the same splitting to the whole Lorentz algebra as sl_2(R)_e ⊞ sl_2(R)_f. The Borel subgroup's two open copies $Bor^{{(±)}}$_{1,3} cover the Lorentz group and intersect in the maximal torus, and the quotient Lor_{1,3}/Bor_{1,3} is the projective manifold $S^{2}$.

What would settle it

A decisive check is to look for a massless fermion that is not its own antiparticle and has both helicity states: the paper's non-self-conjugate case (k,0)⊕(0,k) allows only a single helicity per chirality, so observing both helicities for such a particle would refute the Borel-stabilizer claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the usual little group for massless particles, E(2) ≅ $R^{2}$ ⋊ SO(2), is only the point fixgroup of the momentum vector p=(1,0,0,1). The paper argues that the physically relevant object is the line fixgroup, which also allows the interchange of time and space components and rescaling of the momentum; this enlarges the stabilizer to the Borel subgroup Bor_{1,3}. The character equation B p = χ(B)p then has solutions $B^{{(+)}}$(β;θ,ω) parametrized by two translations β, a boost θ and a rotation ω, with the unipotent radical and the maximal torus SO_0(1,1)×SO(2). The Borel algebra decomposes as a Kronecker sum sol_2(e) ⊞ sol_2(f), and helicity states are the common eigenvectors of the two sol_2 factors; Lemma 6.1 reconstructs the whole Lorentz algebra as sl_2(R)_e ⊞ sl_2(R)_f. The paper therefore claims that pure helicity states — photons, two-component massless fermions — are exactly the representation content of the Borel subgroup, so 'zero mass' is a statement about Borel structure rather than about dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the premise that the physically relevant little group for a massless particle is the stabilizer of the light-like line, so the momentum may be rescaled, rather than the stabilizer of the exact momentum vector.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Massless particles are classified by irreducible representations of Bor_{1,3}; helicity eigenvalues are read off from the common eigenvectors of the two sol_2 components rather than from a separate physical postulate.
  • The quotient Lor_{1,3}/Bor_{1,3} is the 2-sphere S^2, so the space of light-like lines is projective; both compact (S^2) and noncompact (SO_0(1,2)/SO(2)) coset parametrizations exist.
  • For a massless particle equal to its antiparticle, the self-conjugate case (k,k), the Borel representation gives 4k helicity states; for a particle not equal to its antiparticle, the non-self-conjugate case (k,0)⊕(0,k), it gives a single helicity state per chirality, and the (1/2,0) state solves the standard two-component spinor equation.
  • If a particle state has pure helicity or spin, the paper's conclusion is that its mass is zero and its stabilizer fixes the line of light-like propagation.
  • The Lorentz group itself is reconstructed from two copies of SL_2(R) by a Kronecker sum (Lemma 6.1), so Lorentz representation theory can be carried out in sl_2(R) terms.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Our inference: the same Borel-stabilizer criterion could be applied to other spacetime isometry groups, where the Borel subgroup would define which particle species count as massless.
  • Our inference: building induced representations of the inhomogeneous Lorentz group with the Borel subgroup as stabilizer, and comparing with the standard E(2) induction, should reveal how the gauge translations are absorbed into the unipotent radical; the two constructions should differ in the realization of the gauge degrees of freedom.
  • Our inference: if the Borel subgroup supersedes E(2) as the physical little group, the counting of polarization states in induced-representation treatments may change, since the rescalings of a light-like line are part of the stabilizer rather than a separate gauge motion.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that massless particle states are characterized by the Borel subgroup of the proper Lorentz group rather than by Wigner's Euclidean little group E(2). The authors construct an explicit parameterization of the Borel subgroup as a line fixgroup of a lightlike momentum vector, compute quotients Lor_{1,3}/Bor_{1,3}, decompose the Lorentz algebra via a Kronecker sum of two sl_2(R) or sol_2 algebras, and derive helicity eigenstates from the two sol_2 components. They conclude that the massive/massless distinction is not physical but is determined by the underlying Lie group structure: compact semisimple SO(3) for massive particles versus solvable noncompact Bor_{1,3} for massless particles.

Significance. If the central identification were correct, the paper would supply a compact algebraic characterization of massless particle states and a new derivation of helicity from the Borel subgroup of the Lorentz group. The explicit Borel parameterization in Eqs. (7)-(9), the quotient computations in Sec. 5, and the helicity eigenstates in Eqs. (30)-(31) are concrete and checkable, and they give the paper a useful mathematical core. However, the central physical claim depends on a nonstandard choice: replacing Wigner's point fixgroup, which leaves the momentum vector invariant, by a line fixgroup that allows rescaling of the momentum. Because this assumption is not derived from physical principles, and because Lemma 6.1 has real-algebra inconsistencies, the significance of the paper as a contribution to particle classification is conditional on substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. 3, Eq. (6)] The central claim rests on replacing the Wigner little group, which fixes the momentum vector exactly, by a line fixgroup that only fixes the direction of the momentum. This is not a derived result: for B=B^{(+)}(0;θ,0) in Eq. (7)-(8), Eq. (6) gives B p = e^θ p, so a generic Borel element changes the energy and spatial momentum by a factor e^θ. In Wigner's induced-representation construction, a physical momentum eigenstate must be invariant under the little group up to a phase, not rescaled; the abstract's statement that the lightlike point fixgroup is SO_0(1,1)×R^2 is therefore not the standard E(2)=SO(2)⋉R^2. The text itself calls the line fixgroup 'reasonable' rather than deriving it, and Section 7's assertion that the stabiliser of the momentum four-vector is the Borel subgroup contradicts Eq. (6). The authors need either to justify why the line fixgroup is the physically relevant stabilizer for massless particles, or to reframe the paper as an alternative classification based on momentum directions rather than momentum vectors.
  2. [Sec. 6.1, Eqs. (22)-(23), (27)] Lemma 6.1 is presented as the main new outcome but is not proved, and as stated it cannot hold over the real Lorentz algebra. For example, e_{02} = -i(e_1⊞(-e_1)) contains an explicit factor i multiplying real sl_2(R) generators, so the right-hand side is not a real linear combination of the real Lorentz generators. Moreover, the claimed real-algebra isomorphism lor_{1,3} ≅ sl_2(R)_e ⊞ sl_2(R)_f would make lor_{1,3} a direct sum of two commuting real algebras, which is not simple, whereas lor_{1,3} ≅ sl(2,C)_R is simple. The decomposition can be valid only after complexification or in a complex representation, not as a real Lie algebra isomorphism. A corrected statement, with a proof, is required because the helicity construction in Section 6 relies on this decomposition.
  3. [Sec. 4] The statement Lor_{1,3} = Bor_{1,3}^{(-)} ∪ Bor_{1,3}^{(+)} is false: the union of two proper subgroups of a group is not generally a subgroup, and a connected topological group cannot be the union of two proper closed subgroups. What is true and useful is the vector-space decomposition of the Lie algebra lor_{1,3} = bor_{1,3}^{(-)} + bor_{1,3}^{(+)}. The group-level union claim should be removed or replaced by the correct statement, since it is repeated in the introduction as a summary of the Borel structure.
  4. [Sec. 5.1-5.2] The two quotient computations are mutually inconsistent: Sec. 5.1 concludes Lor_{1,3}/Bor_{1,3}^{(+)} = SO(3)/SO(2) = S^2, while Sec. 5.2 concludes the same quotient equals the noncompact hyperboloid Y^2 = SO_0(1,2)/SO(2). A fixed homogeneous space G/H has a single topology, so it cannot be both compact and noncompact. The second computation appears to parametrize a submanifold or a different coset space rather than the full quotient; the text needs to specify which coset space is being computed and why the two results are compatible.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2] The chain Lor_{1,3} ≅ SL(2,C)/Z_2 ≅ SO(3,C) is imprecise as a statement about real Lie groups: SO(3,C) is the complexification of the compact group SO(3), and as a real Lie group it is not identical to SO_0(1,3). The text should say that the complexification of lor_{1,3} is so(4,C) ≅ sl(2,C)⊕sl(2,C), or specify the sense in which the isomorphisms are meant.
  2. [Sec. 4] There are several typographical and notation issues: 'nilponent' should be 'nilpotent', 'concorrespondingly' in the conclusions should be 'correspondingly', and the notation Rad_u^{(+)} versus rad_u^{(+)} should be used consistently for the group and the Lie algebra.
  3. [Sec. 2.3] The sentence 'Proceeding purely mathematically, one finds that for massless particles the little group is maximal connected, noncompact and solvable' asserts the paper's main conclusion before the construction in Section 4; it should be marked as the paper's proposal rather than a standard result, since Wigner's point little group is E(2), which is nonmaximal.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The massless-as-Borel conclusion is built into the chosen line-fixgroup premise, and the character-equation solution and helicity assignment lean on the authors' own prior papers.

  1. self definitional [Abstract; Sec. 2.3; Sec. 3; Eq. (6)]
    "However, for light-like translations it is reasonable to consider a line fixgroup that leads to the Borel structure ... Proceeding purely mathematically, one finds that for massless particles (m=0), the little group is maximal connected, noncompact and solvable, resulting in a Borel subgroup Bor 1,3 ... what is not taken into account by this is the interchange of time and space components, which is obviously an additional symmetry transformation. Together with this additional transformation, the fixed point group is given by the Borel subgroup Bor1,3."

    Wigner's little group is introduced as the point fixgroup of (1,0,0,1)^T, i.e. E(2), which requires Bp=p. The Borel subgroup solves the weaker line-fixgroup equation Bp=chi(B)p, Eq. (6); for the boost parameter theta, chi=e^theta, so a generic Borel element rescales the momentum. The paper passes from E(2) to Bor_{1,3} only by declaring the rescaling boost to be an additional symmetry transformation and by declaring the massless little group to be maximal connected solvable. Since Bor_{1,3} is by definition the maximal connected solvable subgroup, and the maximal-solvable/line-fixing premise is exactly the massless-Borel conclusion, the central claim is an input re-labelled as a result. The text's own word 'reasonable' marks it as a choice rather than a derivation.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sec. 1; Sec. 4, Eqs. (6)-(8); Sec. 6.3]
    "as physicists, we do not apply any rigorous mathematical formalism, consisting of definitions, lemmata, prepositions, theorems, and corollaries, together with the corresponding proofs. Instead, we mention the components of our considerations in these mathematical terms, without providing proofs in most instances; these, instead, can be found in the references that we cite ... Solving the character equation ... one obtains [6, 7] B^(+)(...) ... It is even possible to show that for particles, this is the left-handed helicity state [7]."

    Refs [6] and [7] are the authors' own earlier papers, which the present paper itself describes as pioneering the same subject. The explicit solution of Eq. (6) that produces the Borel subgroup, the central object of the paper, is not proved here but is taken from [6,7]; likewise the assignment of the particle helicity state as left-handed is delegated to [7]. The paper explicitly states that most proofs are to be found in the cited references. Thus at the load-bearing points of the physical identification, the argument reduces to the authors' prior work rather than to an independently checked derivation.

full rationale

The Lie-group mathematics in the paper is largely standard and not circular: Borel subgroups of the Lorentz group, the quotients S^2 and SO_0(1,2)/SO(2), the unipotent radical, and Lemma 6.1 on sl_2(R) reconstruction are external or independently presented. The circularity is at the interface between mathematics and physics. The central physical claim, that the massless little group is the Borel subgroup rather than Wigner's E(2), is obtained by replacing the point fixgroup (which fixes p=(1,0,0,1) exactly) with the line fixgroup (which allows Bp=chi(B)p). Because the Borel subgroup is, by standard theorems and by the paper's own Eq. (6), exactly the maximal connected solvable line-stabilizer, the conclusion 'massless => Borel' is equivalent to the premise that the physically relevant stabilizer is the line fixgroup. The paper's abstract says this premise is 'reasonable,' not derived, and Sec. 1 admits that most proofs are deferred to references, including the authors' own [6,7] for the character-equation solution and left-handed helicity assignment. This is therefore more than a mere self-citation: the central physical identification reduces by construction to the chosen definition of the fixgroup and to the authors' prior formulation. A score of 7 rather than 8 reflects that the underlying Borel-structure mathematics has substantial independent content; the circularity is in the physical application, not in the algebra.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical parameters are fitted to data and no new entities are posited. The central claim rests on standard algebraic-group theorems, on the physical assumption that the Lorentz group governs particle symmetry, and on the paper-specific choice to replace the point fixgroup with a line fixgroup for massless particles.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Minkowski spacetime and the proper Lorentz group SO0(1,3) is the full spacetime symmetry group for particle states.
    Used throughout, inherited from the Wigner classification; not derived in the paper.
  • standard math Borel subgroup theorems (Chevalley, Lie-Kolchin, Borel fixed point) apply to the real Lorentz group as a linear algebraic group.
    Section 2.4 cites Theorem 11.4.7 in Ref [21]; these are standard results.
  • ad hoc to paper The physically relevant stabilizer for massless particles is the stabilizer of a light-like line, not the stabilizer of the momentum vector.
    Section 3 introduces the additional scaling transformation that enlarges E(2) to the Borel subgroup; this choice is definitional and is not derived from Wigner's point fixgroup.
  • domain assumption Noncompact degrees of freedom in the little group must act trivially to avoid a continuum of helicity states.
    Section 3 uses the standard Wigner argument that the R^2 translations must be trivial in physical representations; this assumption is carried over to the Borel subgroup.
  • ad hoc to paper The real Lorentz algebra admits the Kronecker sum decomposition sl2(R)_e ⊞ sl2(R)_f.
    Lemma 6.1 asserts this decomposition, but it uses complex coefficients (i times sl2(R) generators) to define real generators, so the real-form closure is not established.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Zero mass as a Borel structure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F7D7BSRV

@misc{pith2026250612079,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Zero mass as a Borel structure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F7D7BSRV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12079}
}
abstract

The Lorentz group Lor$_{1,3}=$SO$_0(1,3)$ has two point fixgroups, namely SO$(3)$ for time-like translations and SO$_0(1,1)\times R^2$ for light-like translations. However, for light-like translations it is reasonable to consider a line fixgroup that leads to the Borel structure of the Lorentz group and gives appropriate helicities for massless particles. Therefore, whether a particle is massless or massive is not so much a physical question but rather a question of the underlying Lie group symmetry.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Spin operators and representations of the Poincar\'e group

    Taeseung Choi and Sam Young Cho, “Spin operators and representations of the Poincar´ e group,” [arXiv:1807.06425 [physics.gen-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [2]

    Group Theoretical Derivation of Consistent Massless Particle Theories,

    G. Nistic` o, “Group Theoretical Derivation of Consistent Massless Particle Theories,” Found. Phys.51(2021), 112

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Bundle Structure of Massless Unitary Representations of the Poincar´ e Group,

    N. Dragon, “Bundle Structure of Massless Unitary Representations of the Poincar´ e Group,” Int. J. Theor. Phys.63(2024), 149

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Poincare field theory for massive particles

    Branislav Sazdovi´ c, “Poincare field theory for massive particles,” [arXiv:2410.12549 [hep-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  5. [5]

    Poincare field theory for massless particles

    Branislav Sazdovi´ c, “Poincare field theory for massless particles,” [arXiv:2410.12969 [hep-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  6. [6]

    Mass, zero mass and . . . nophysics,

    Rein Saar and Stefan Groote, “Mass, zero mass and . . . nophysics,” Adv. Appl. Clifford Algebras27(2017) 3, 2739-2768

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    A solvable algebra for massless fermions,

    Stefan Groote and Rein Saar, “A solvable algebra for massless fermions,” Symmetry16(2024) 1, 97 27

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    On the Representation theory of inhomogeneous Lorentz groups as the foundation of quantum mechanical kinematics,

    H. Joos, “On the Representation theory of inhomogeneous Lorentz groups as the foundation of quantum mechanical kinematics,” Fortsch. Phys.10(1962), 65-146

    work page 1962

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Realizations of the unitary representations of the inhomogeneous space-time groups. 1. general structure,

    U.H. Niederer, L.O. Raifeartaigh, “Realizations of the unitary representations of the inhomogeneous space-time groups. 1. general structure,” Fortsch. Phys.22(1974), 111-129

    1974

  2. [10]

    Realizations of the unitary representations of the inhomogeneous space-time groups. 2. covariant realizations of the poincare group,

    U.H. Niederer, L.O. Raifeartaigh, “Realizations of the unitary representations of the inhomogeneous space-time groups. 2. covariant realizations of the poincare group,” Fortsch. Phys.22(1974), 131-157

    1974

  3. [11]

    Armand Borel,Linear Algebraic Groups, Springer, New York, 1991

    1991

  4. [12]

    Sur la dynamique de l’´ electron

    Henri Poincar´ e, “Sur la dynamique de l’´ electron”, Rendiconti del Circolo matematico di Palermo21(1906) 129–176 (sent to the editor on July 23rd, 1905)

    1906

  5. [13]

    On Unitary Representations of the Inhomogeneous Lorentz Group

    Eugene Paul Wigner, “On Unitary Representations of the Inhomogeneous Lorentz Group”, Annals Math.40(1939) 149 [Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.6(1989) 9]

    1939

  6. [14]

    Unitary Representations of the inhomogeneous Lorentz Group including Reflections

    Eugene Paul Wigner, “Unitary Representations of the inhomogeneous Lorentz Group including Reflections”, Lecture at the Istanbul Summer School of Theoretical Physics (ed. by F. G¨ ursey), Gordan and Breach, New York and London, 1962, pp. 37–80

    1962

  7. [15]

    Unitary Representations of the Poincar´ e Group and Relativistic Wave Equations

    Yoshio Ohnuki, “Unitary Representations of the Poincar´ e Group and Relativistic Wave Equations”, World Scientific, Singapore, 1976

    1976

  8. [16]

    The Quantum Theory of Fields

    Steven Weinberg, “The Quantum Theory of Fields”, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995

    1995

  9. [17]

    A convenient Prepresentation Theory of Lorentzian Pseudo-Tensors: PandTin O(1,3),

    Craig McRae, “A convenient Prepresentation Theory of Lorentzian Pseudo-Tensors: PandTin O(1,3),” [arXiv:2501.05400 [math-ph]]

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Linear Algebraic Groups,

    James Edward Humphreys, “Linear Algebraic Groups,” Springer Verlag, 1995

    1995

  11. [19]

    Theorie der Transformationsgruppen – Abhandlung II,

    Sophus Lie, “Theorie der Transformationsgruppen – Abhandlung II,” Arch. Math. Naturvidenskab1(1876), 152-193 28

  12. [20]

    Algebraic matric groups and the Picard–Vessiot theory of homogeneous linear ordinary differential equations,

    E.R. Kolchin, “Algebraic matric groups and the Picard–Vessiot theory of homogeneous linear ordinary differential equations,” Ann. Math.49(1948), 1-42

    1948

  13. [21]

    Goodman, N.R

    R. Goodman, N.R. Wallach,Symmetry, Representations, and Invariants, Springer, New York, 2009

    2009

  14. [22]

    Group Theory in Physics,

    Wu-Ki Tung, “Group Theory in Physics,” World Scientific, Singapore, 1999

    1999

  15. [23]

    The Wigner Little Group for Pho- tons Is a Projective Subalgebra,

    Moab Croft, Hamish Todd and Edward Corbett, “The Wigner Little Group for Pho- tons Is a Projective Subalgebra,” Adv. Appl. Clifford Algebras35(2025) 11

    2025

  16. [24]

    Unitary representations of the inhomogeneous Lorentz group

    Ronald Shaw, “Unitary representations of the inhomogeneous Lorentz group”, Nuovo Cim.33(1964) 1074-1090

    1964

  17. [25]

    Lie Groups,

    Danel Bump, “Lie Groups,” Graduate Text in Mathematics, Springer Verlag, 2004

    2004

  18. [26]

    Operational Spacetime. Interactions and Particles,

    Heinrich Saller, “Operational Spacetime. Interactions and Particles,” Springer Verlag, 2010

    2010

  19. [27]

    Complex hidden symmetries in real spacetime and their algebraic structures,

    Rui Vilela Mendes, “Complex hidden symmetries in real spacetime and their algebraic structures,” [arXiv:2501.12960 [hep-th]]

  20. [28]

    Relativistic wave equations as singular hyper- bolic systems

    D. Kwoh, Senior Thesis, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J., 1970 (unpublished), cited on page 457 in: A.S. Wightman, “Relativistic wave equations as singular hyper- bolic systems”, Proc. Symp. Pure Math.23(1973) 441

    1973

  21. [29]

    Lie algebras – Finite and Infinite Dimensional Lie Algebras and Applications in Physics

    G. G. A. B¨ auerle, E. A. de Kerf, “Lie algebras – Finite and Infinite Dimensional Lie Algebras and Applications in Physics”, Elsevier, North-Holland, 1990

    1990

  22. [30]

    Theory Of Group Representations And Applications

    A.O. Barut and R. Raczka, “Theory Of Group Representations And Applications”, World Scientific, Singapore, 1986

    1986

  23. [31]

    An infinite-rank Lie algebra associated to SL(2,R) and SL(2,R)/U(1),

    Rutwig Campoamor-Stursberg, Alessio Marrani and Michael Rausch de Traubenberg, “An infinite-rank Lie algebra associated to SL(2,R) and SL(2,R)/U(1),” J. Math. Phys.65(2024) 8, 081702 29

    2024

  24. [32]

    Tauvel, R.W.T

    P. Tauvel, R.W.T. Yu,Lie Algebras and Algebraic Groups, Springer, New York, 2005

    2005

  25. [33]

    Algebraic Quantum Field Theory and Causal Symmetric Spaces,

    Karl-Hermann Neeb and Gestur ´Olafsson, “Algebraic Quantum Field Theory and Causal Symmetric Spaces,” [arXiv:2210.01299 [math-ph]] 30

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.