# Reflections and spinors on manifolds

## Introduction

This paper contains a brief review of the work, done mostly in collaboration with Ludwik Da̧browski , Michel Cahen, Simone Gutt  and Thomas Friedrich , on pin structures and the Dirac operator on higher-dimensional Riemannian manifolds; see also  and the references given there. In physics, there is now interest in higher dimensions motivated by research on unified theories, on supersymmetries, strings and their generalizations. There is also an intrinsic motivation: the Dirac operator is a fundamental object of an importance comparable to that of the Laplace operator and of the Maxwell, Yang-Mills and Einstein equations.

Reflections in a quadratic space generate the orthogonal group of automorphisms of that space; according to the Cartan-Dieudonné theorem, every orthogonal transformation in an $`m`$-dimensional quadratic space can be written as the product of a sequence of no more than $`m`$ reflections. Reflections are of considerable interest in physics: invariance of electromagnetism under space reflections leads to selection rules; their violation is a striking feature of weak interactions. The PCT theorem describes a fundamental property of relativistic quantum field theories.

There are several “spinorial” extensions of orthogonal groups; each of them can be used to define a “(s)pin structure” that is required to describe spinor fields on a curved manifold. For these structures to exist, the manifold should satisfy certain topological conditions; see  and the literature listed there. In this paper, I recall two definitions of spinor fields on manifolds and give several simple examples of spin and pin structures. The next section summarizes the definitions and terminology of Clifford algebras and their representations.

## Clifford algebras and spinors

There are important differences—and similarities—between spinors associated with vector spaces of even and odd dimensions.

Let $`h`$ be a quadratic form on a real vector space $`V`$ of dimension $`m`$. The pair $`(V,h)`$ is said to be a quadratic space. The Clifford algebra $`𝖢𝗅𝗂𝖿𝖿(h)`$ associated with $`(V,h)`$ is generated by elements of $`V`$ subject to relations of the form $`u^2=h(u)`$; see  and Ch. IX of . Let $`\alpha `$ be the involutive automorphism of $`𝖢𝗅𝗂𝖿𝖿(h)`$ such that $`\alpha (1)=1`$ and $`\alpha (v)=v`$ for every $`vV`$. This (main) automorphism defines a $`_2`$-grading of the Clifford algebra, $`𝖢𝗅𝗂𝖿𝖿(h)=𝖢𝗅𝗂𝖿𝖿^{\mathrm{even}}(h)𝖢𝗅𝗂𝖿𝖿^{\mathrm{odd}}(h)`$ and $`V`$ is a vector subspace of the odd part. Let $`(e_i),i=1,\mathrm{},m`$ be an orthonormal frame in $`V`$. As a vector space, the algebra $`𝖢𝗅𝗂𝖿𝖿(h)`$ is $``$-graded, $`𝖢𝗅𝗂𝖿𝖿(h)=_{p=0}^m𝖢𝗅𝗂𝖿𝖿^p(h)`$, where $`𝖢𝗅𝗂𝖿𝖿^p(h)`$ is the vector space spanned by all elements of the form $`e_{i_1}\mathrm{}e_{i_p}`$ such that $`1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_pm`$. In particular, $`𝖢𝗅𝗂𝖿𝖿^m(h)`$ is spanned by the volume element $`\eta =e_1\mathrm{}e_m`$; its square is either 1 or $`1`$, depending on the signature of $`h`$. If $`uV`$ is not null, $`u^20`$, then the linear map $`VV`$, $`vuvu^1`$, is a reflection in the hyperplane orthogonal to $`u`$. Since $`\eta v=(1)^{m+1}v\eta `$ for every $`vV`$, if $`m`$ is even, then one can write $`uvu^1=(u\eta )v(u\eta )^1`$. One says that $`uV`$ is a unit vector if $`h(u)=1`$ or $`1`$. The group $`𝖯𝗂𝗇(h)`$ is defined as the set of products $`u_1u_2\mathrm{}u_r`$ of all sequences of unit vectors, with a composition induced by Clifford multiplication and $`𝖲𝗉𝗂𝗇(h)=𝖯𝗂𝗇(h)𝖢𝗅𝗂𝖿𝖿^{\mathrm{even}}(h)`$. The adjoint representation $`Ad`$ of $`𝖯𝗂𝗇(h)`$ in $`V`$ is defined by $`Ad(a)v=ava^1`$, where $`a𝖯𝗂𝗇(h)`$ and $`vV`$. For $`m`$ even, the map $`Ad`$ is a homomorphism onto $`𝖮(h)`$ with kernel $`_2=\{1,1\}`$; for $`m`$ odd, $`Ad`$ is a homomorphism onto $`𝖲𝖮(h)`$. In both cases, to obtain a double cover of $`𝖮(h)`$ that coincides with $`Ad`$ when restricted to $`𝖲𝗉𝗂𝗇(h)`$, one can use the twisted adjoint representation $`\stackrel{~}{Ad}`$ of $`𝖯𝗂𝗇(h)`$, defined by $`\stackrel{~}{Ad}(a)v=\alpha (a)va^1`$. If $`h`$ is of signature $`(k,l)`$, $`k+l=m`$, then one writes $`𝖢𝗅𝗂𝖿𝖿_{k,l}`$, $`𝖯𝗂𝗇_{k,l}`$, and $`𝖲𝗉𝗂𝗇_{k,l}`$ instead of $`𝖢𝗅𝗂𝖿𝖿(h)`$, $`𝖯𝗂𝗇(h)`$ and $`𝖲𝗉𝗂𝗇(h)`$, respectively.

For $`m=2n`$, the algebra $`𝖢𝗅𝗂𝖿𝖿(h)`$ is central simple and has one, up to equivalence, irreducible and faithful representation $`\gamma `$ in a complex, $`2^n`$-dimensional space $`S`$ of Dirac spinors. Given such a representation, one identifies $`𝖢𝗅𝗂𝖿𝖿(h)`$ with its image in $`𝖤𝗇𝖽S`$. Upon restriction to $`𝖢𝗅𝗂𝖿𝖿^{\mathrm{even}}(h)`$, this representation decomposes into the direct sum of two irreducible and complex-inequivalent representations in spaces of Weyl (chiral, reduced or half) spinors so that $`S=S_+S_{}`$. The Dirac operator changes the chirality of spinors. Introducing the $`2^n\times 2^n`$ Dirac matrices $`\gamma ^i`$ and writing $`\gamma _\pm ^i=\gamma ^iS_\pm `$, one obtains the well-known decomposition of the Dirac operator, $`\gamma ^i_i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \gamma _{}^i_i\\ \gamma _+^i_i& 0\end{array}\right)`$.

For $`m=2n1`$, the algebra $`𝖢𝗅𝗂𝖿𝖿^{\mathrm{even}}(h)`$ is central simple and has one, up to equivalence, representation in a complex, $`2^{n1}`$-dimensional space of Pauli spinors. The full algebra has two complex-inequivalent, in general not faithful, representations in spaces of Pauli spinors. The direct sum of these representations is a decomposable, but faithful, representation of $`𝖢𝗅𝗂𝖿𝖿(h)`$ in the $`2^n`$-dimensional space of Cartan spinors. Similarly as in this case of an even-dimensional space, the Dirac operator interchanges here the spinors belonging to the two Pauli representations. Namely, let $`\sigma ^i`$, where $`i=1,\mathrm{},2n1`$, be the $`2^{n1}\times 2^{n1}`$ Pauli matrices. The (modified) Dirac operator, acting on Cartan spinor fields, can be written as $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma ^i_i\\ \sigma ^i_i& 0\end{array}\right)`$. The Cartan representation is essential when one considers the Dirac operator on non-orientable, odd-dimensional manifolds .

## Spinors on manifolds

There are (at least) two approaches to spinors on manifolds; both of them can be traced to early work by mathematicians and physicists; see  and the references to the period 1928-1931 given there.

### The classical approach

The first approach to be summarized here, initiated by Wigner, Weyl and Fock, consists in referring spinors to tetrads (“Vierbeine”); its modern formulation uses the notion of a (s)pin structure involving a “prolongation” of the bundle $`P`$ of orthonormal frames to the principal (s)pin bundle $`Q`$. More precisely, given a Riemannian manifold $`M`$ with a metric tensor of signature $`(k,l)`$, a $`𝖯𝗂𝗇_{k,l}`$-structure on $`M`$ is given by the maps

(1) 
$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝖯𝗂𝗇_{k,l}& & Q\\ \stackrel{~}{Ad}& & \chi & & \\ 𝖮_{k,l}& & P& \stackrel{\pi }{}& M,\end{array}$$

such that $`\chi (qa)=\chi (q)\stackrel{~}{Ad}(a)`$, $`(q,a)qa`$ denotes the action map of $`𝖯𝗂𝗇_{k,l}`$ in the principal spin bundle $`Q`$, etc. If $`𝖯𝗂𝗇_{k,l}`$ in (1) is replaced by $`𝖯𝗂𝗇_{l,k}`$, then one obtains the definition of a $`𝖯𝗂𝗇_{l,k}`$-structure. They are both referred to as pin structures; if the manifold is orientable and has a pin structure, then it has a spin structure. The diagram describing a spin structure is shortened to

(2) 
$$\underset{k,l}{𝖲𝗉𝗂𝗇}QPM.$$

The spinor connection is obtained as the lift of the Levi-Civita connection from $`P`$ to $`Q`$. This approach, standard in mathematics , is sometimes criticized by physicists who say that they have no use for principal bundles and are willing to consider only spinor fields.

One can present this approach in a language familiar to physicists, by referring everything to local sections of the bundle $`QM`$ and using the terminology of gauge fields. For simplicity, consider an even-dimensional manifold, $`k+l=2n`$, put $`G=𝖯𝗂𝗇_{k,l}`$ and let a representation of $`𝖢𝗅𝗂𝖿𝖿_{k,l}`$ in $`S`$ be given by the Dirac matrices $`\gamma _i𝖤𝗇𝖽S`$. A spinor field is now a map $`\psi :MS`$; given a function $`U:MG`$, one defines the gauge-transformed spinor field as $`\psi ^{}=U^1\psi `$, $`\psi ^{}(x)=U(x)^1\psi (x)`$ for $`xM`$. A spinor connection (“gauge potential”) is a 1-form $`\omega `$ on $`M`$ with values in the Lie algebra of $`G`$, i.e. in $`𝖢𝗅𝗂𝖿𝖿_{k,l}^2𝖤𝗇𝖽S`$; therefore, it can be written as $`\omega =\frac{1}{4}\gamma ^i\gamma ^j\omega _{ij}`$, where $`\omega _{ij}=\omega _{ji}`$ are 1-forms. The covariant (“gauge”) derivative of $`\psi `$ is

(3) 
$$D\psi =\mathrm{d}\psi +\omega \psi .$$

The gauge transformation $`U`$ induces a change of the connection, $`\omega \omega ^{}=U^1\omega U+U^1\mathrm{d}U`$ so that $`(D\psi )^{}=U^1D\psi `$. Since the dimension of $`M`$ is even, the adjoint representation is onto $`𝖮_{k,l}`$ and one can define, for every $`a𝖯𝗂𝗇_{k,l}𝖦𝖫(S)`$, the (orthogonal) matrix $`(\rho _{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}(a))`$ by $`a^1\gamma ^ia=\rho _{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}(a)\gamma ^j`$, so that $`a^1\gamma _ia=\gamma _j\rho _{}^{j}{}_{i}{}^{}(a^1)`$. From the Lemma: if $`a𝖢𝗅𝗂𝖿𝖿_{k,l}^p`$, then $`g^{ij}\gamma _ia\gamma _j=(1)^p(n2p)a`$, taking into account that $`U^1\mathrm{d}U`$ is in the Lie algebra of $`G`$—therefore of degree $`p=2`$—one obtains $`g^{ij}U^1\gamma _iU\mathrm{d}(U^1\gamma _jU)=4U^1\mathrm{d}U`$ so that $`\omega _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}=\rho _{}^{i}{}_{k}{}^{}(U^1)\omega _{}^{k}{}_{l}{}^{}\rho _{}^{l}{}_{j}{}^{}(U)+\rho _{}^{i}{}_{k}{}^{}(U^1)\mathrm{d}\rho _{}^{k}{}_{j}{}^{}(U)`$. Let $`(e_i)`$ be a field of orthonormal frames on $`M`$ and let $`(e^i)`$ denote the dual field of coframes. Since, by definition, $`\omega _{ij}+\omega _{ji}=0`$, the 1-forms $`(\omega _{ij})`$ define a metric linear connection. Its torsion $`\mathrm{d}e^i+\omega _{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}e^j`$ need not be zero.

The action of the Dirac operator $`𝒟`$ on a spinor field is $`𝒟\psi =\gamma ^ie_i\mathrm{}D\psi `$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes contraction.

### Spinor fields according to Schrödinger and Karrer

The second approach can be traced back to work by Tetrode; it has been clearly formulated by Schrödinger <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1I thank Engelbert Schücking for having drawn my attention to this remarkable paper. It contains a derivation of the formula for the square of the Dirac operator on Riemannian manifolds. and Karrer ; it sometimes appears in texts written by physicists; see, e.g., . Consider a Riemannian manifold $`(M,g)`$ and let $`g_x`$ denotes the quadratic form induced by $`g`$ in the vector space $`T_xM`$ tangent to $`M`$ at $`x`$. One assumes now the existence of a representation $`\gamma `$ of the Clifford bundle $`𝖢𝗅𝗂𝖿𝖿(g)=_{xM}𝖢𝗅𝗂𝖿𝖿(g_x)`$ in a vector bundle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$ of spinors so that $`\gamma (u)^2=g(u,u)id_{T_xM}`$ for every $`uT_xM`$. One then introduces a spinor covariant derivative on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, compatible with a metric covariant derivative on $`TM`$. Such a structure is weaker (more general) than a classical spin structure. For example, it exists on every almost Hermitean manifold even though some of these manifolds—such as the even-dimensional complex projective spaces—do not admit a spin structure. The precise relation between those two approaches, in the case of even-dimensional orientable manifolds is described in : the second method is equivalent to the introduction of a spin<sup>c</sup>-structure on $`M`$.

In the physicist’s local approach one introduces—following Schrödinger—a spinor field as a smooth map $`\psi :MS`$. The set of all such fields is a module $`𝒮`$ over the ring $`𝒞`$ of smooth functions on the Riemannian manifold $`M`$ assumed here to be of dimension $`m=2n`$. Let $``$ be a covariant derivative in the module $`𝒱`$ of vector fields: if $`u,v𝒱`$, then $`_uv𝒱`$ is the covariant derivative of $`v`$ in the direction of $`u`$. The representation $`\gamma `$ mentioned above associates with a vector field $`u`$ and a spinor field $`\psi `$ another spinor field $`\gamma (u)\psi `$; the map $`𝒱\times 𝒮𝒮`$, $`(u,\psi )\gamma (u)\psi `$, is bilinear and $`\gamma (u)f\psi =f\gamma (u)\psi `$ for every $`f𝒞`$; moreover, it has the Clifford property:

(4) 
$$\gamma (u)^2\psi =g(u,u)\psi .$$

One postulates now the existence of a spinor covariant derivative $`_u^\mathrm{s}:𝒮𝒮`$ compatible with $``$ in the sense that

(5) 
$$_u^\mathrm{s}(\gamma (v)\psi )=\gamma (_uv)\psi +\gamma (u)_u^\mathrm{s}\psi \text{for}u,v𝒱\text{and}\psi 𝒮.$$

Let $`(e_\mu )`$, where $`\mu =1,\mathrm{},m`$, be a field of frames and let $`(e^\mu )`$ be the dual field of coframes; they need not be orthonormal; e.g., given local coordinates $`(x^\mu )`$, one can take $`e^\mu =\mathrm{d}x^\mu `$. The field $`\gamma _\mu =\gamma (e_\mu ):M𝖤𝗇𝖽S`$ satisfies $`\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu +\gamma _\nu \gamma _\mu =2g_{\mu \nu }`$, where $`g_{\mu \nu }=g(e_\mu ,e_\nu )`$. The coefficients of the linear connection defined by $``$ can be read off from $`_{e_\nu }e_\mu =e_\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\rho .`$ The spinor covariant derivative of $`\psi `$ in the direction of $`u`$ can be written as the contraction $`_u^\mathrm{s}\psi =u\mathrm{}D\psi ,`$ where $`D\psi `$ has the form (3). The compatibility condition (5) is equivalent to

(6) 
$$\mathrm{d}\gamma _\mu +[\omega ,\gamma _\mu ]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \sigma }^\rho \gamma _\rho e^\sigma =0.$$

The metricity of $``$ can be justified by covariant-differentiating both sides of (4) and using (5). If $`\omega `$ is a solution of (6) and $`A`$ is a complex-valued 1-form on $`M`$, then $`\omega +\mathrm{i}Aid_S`$ is another solution. Therefore, the connection $`\omega `$ can be interpreted as including an interaction with the electromagnetic field (of potential equal to the real part of $`A`$). Such an interpretation has been clearly formulated by Fock  and Schrödinger : they may thus be considered as precursors of the idea of spin<sup>c</sup>-structures.

## Examples

### Hypersurfaces in $`^{m+1}`$

Every hypersurface $`M`$ in the Euclidean space $`^{m+1}`$, defined by an isometric immersion $`f:M^{m+1}`$, has a $`𝖯𝗂𝗇_{0,m}`$-structure, canonically defined by $`f`$. Moreover, the associated bundle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of spinors on $`M`$ is trivial: it is isomorphic to the Cartesian product $`M\times S`$ and a spinor field can be (globally!) described by a funtion $`\psi :MS`$. A Dirac (resp., Cartan) spinor field on an even (resp., odd) dimensional hypersurface is the restriction of a Pauli (resp., Dirac) field on the surrounding space. In terms of the trivialization of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the Dirac operator assumes a rather simple form . Let $`\nu _i`$, where $`i=1,\mathrm{},m+1`$, be the Cartesian components of a unit, normal vector field on $`M`$. Let $`m=2n`$ or $`2n1`$; introduce the Dirac $`2^n\times 2^n`$ matrices $`\gamma _i`$ satisfying $`\gamma _i\gamma _j+\gamma _j\gamma _i=2\delta _{ij},i,j=1,\mathrm{},m+1.`$ Then

(7) 
$$𝒟=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma ^k\nu _k)(\gamma ^i\gamma ^j(\nu _j_i\nu _i_j)\text{div}\nu ),$$

where $`\text{div}\nu `$ is the intrinsic divergence of $`\nu `$, $`\text{div}\nu =_{i,j}(\delta _{ij}\nu _i\nu _j)_i\nu _j`$. If $`M`$ is the hyperplane of equation $`x^{m+1}=0`$, then $`\nu _i=\delta _i^{m+1}`$ and $`𝒟=_{\mu =1}^m\gamma ^\mu _\mu `$. Formula (7) has been used to find, in a simple manner, the spectrum and the eigenfunctions of the Dirac operator on spheres .

### Spheres, projective spaces, and quadrics

1. The spin structures on spheres are well-known: for every $`m>1`$, the $`m`$-dimensional sphere $`𝕊_m`$ has a unique spin structure; in the style of (2) it is given by the sequence of maps $`𝖲𝗉𝗂𝗇_m𝖲𝗉𝗂𝗇_{m+1}𝖲𝖮_{m+1}𝕊_m.`$

The spectrum of $`𝒟`$ on $`𝕊_m`$ is of the form:

The eigenfunctions $`\psi :𝕊_mS`$ are either symmetric or antisymmetric; these two types of symmetries are indicated here by bullets and crosses; which of the eigenfunctions (bullets or crosses) are even depends on the trivialization of the bundle of spinors; only the relative parity matters.

2. The real projective spaces $`\text{P}_m=𝕊_m/_2`$ are orientable iff $`m`$ is odd; for $`m>1`$ there are either two inequivalent (s)pin structures or none :

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}m& 0& 1& 2& 3& \text{mod}& 4\\ \text{structure:}& 𝖯𝗂𝗇_{m,0}& \text{no}& 𝖯𝗂𝗇_{0,m}& 𝖲𝗉𝗂𝗇_m& & \end{array}$$

Since $`\text{P}_m`$ is locally isometric to $`𝕊_m`$, the spectrum of $`𝒟`$ on such a space can be obtained from that of the sphere: the symmetric eigenfunctions descend to one (s)pin structure on $`\text{P}_m`$ and the antisymmetric functions—to the other; these spectra are thus asymmetric.

3. The real projective quadrics are defined as conformal compactifications of pseudo-Euclidean spaces; they generalize the Penrose construction of compactified Minkowski space-time. The quadric $`𝕊_{k,l}=(𝕊_k\times 𝕊_l)/_2`$ admits two natural metrics, descending from the spheres: a proper Riemannian metric and a pseudo-Riemannian one, of signature $`(k,l)`$. The quadrics $`𝕊_{k,0}`$ and $`𝕊_{0,k}`$ can be identified with $`𝕊_k`$; a quadric is said to be proper if $`kl0`$. A proper quadric is orientable iff its dimension is even. If $`kl>1`$, then $`\mathrm{H}^1(𝕊_{k,l},_2)=_2`$; therefore, for $`kl>1`$, the quadric has either 2 inequivalent (s)pin structures or none. The following table, based on , summarizes the results on the existence of (s)pin structures on $`𝕊_{k,l}`$ for $`kl>1`$:

| $`k+l=2n`$ | $`n`$ | proper Riem. | pseudo-Riem. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| either $`k`$ or $`l=1`$ | any | yes | yes |
| $`k`$ and $`l`$ even | even | no | yes |
| $`k`$ and $`l`$ even | odd | yes | no |
| $`k`$ and $`l`$ odd | even | no | no |
| $`k`$ and $`l`$ odd | odd | yes | yes |
| $`k`$ even and $`l`$ odd |  |  |  |
| $`k+l1mod4`$ |  | $`𝖯𝗂𝗇_{0,k+l}`$ | $`𝖯𝗂𝗇_{l,k}`$ |
| $`k+l3mod4`$ |  | $`𝖯𝗂𝗇_{k+l,0}`$ | $`𝖯𝗂𝗇_{k,l}`$ |

For example, the quadric $`𝕊_{3,5}`$ has no spin structure for either of the metric tensors.

The spectrum of the Dirac operator on the projective quadrics can be obtained from that of the spheres; this is facilitated by the following Lemma: if $`\lambda _i`$ is an eigenvalue of the Dirac operator on a Riemannian spin manifold $`M_i`$, $`i=1,2`$, then the numbers $`\sqrt{\lambda _1^2+\lambda _2^2}`$ and $`\sqrt{\lambda _1^2+\lambda _2^2}`$ are eigenvalues of the Dirac operator on $`M_1\times M_2`$ .

## Action of space and time reflections on spinors

### Charge conjugation

Space and time reflections seem to be closely related to charge conjugation. Consider the Dirac equation

$$(\gamma ^\mu (_\mu \mathrm{i}qA_\mu )m)\psi =0$$

for the Dirac wave function $`\psi :^{2n}S`$ of a particle of mass $`m`$ and charge $`q`$ moving in a $`2n`$-dimensional flat space-time with a metric tensor of signature $`(2n1,1)`$ and an electromagnetic field with potential $`A_\mu `$. Let $`C:S\overline{S}`$ be the isomorphism such that $`\overline{\gamma _\mu }=C\gamma _\mu C^1`$, where bar denotes complex conjugation; the charge conjugate spinor field $`𝖢\psi =\overline{C\psi }`$ satisfies the equation

$$(\gamma ^\mu (_\mu +\mathrm{i}qA_\mu )m)𝖢\psi =0.$$

If $`\psi \mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}Et)`$, then $`𝖢\psi \mathrm{exp}(+\mathrm{i}Et)`$: charge conjugation is said to transform particles into antiparticles.

### Wigner’s time inversion

Let $`\psi :^3\times `$ be a wave function in non-relativistic quantum theory. The time-reversed wave function $`𝖳_W\psi `$ is defined by 

$$(𝖳_W\psi )(𝐫,t)=\overline{\psi (𝐫,t)}.$$

If $`\psi `$ is a solution of the Schrödinger equation with a time-independent, real potential, then so is $`𝖳_W\psi `$. If $`\psi \mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}Et)`$, then also $`𝖳_W\psi \mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}Et)`$.

### Time inversion of spinor fields: Feynman versus Wigner

In the relativistic theory, there are two ways of defining time inversion . Recall first the general statement about the relativistic invariance of the free Dirac equation in Minkowski space. Let $`S`$ denote, as before, the complex vector space of Dirac spinors. A representation of the Clifford algebra $`𝖢𝗅𝗂𝖿𝖿_{3,1}`$ in $`S`$ being given in terms of the Dirac matrices $`\gamma _\mu `$, one can identifiy the group $`𝖯𝗂𝗇_{3,1}`$ with a subgroup of $`𝖦𝖫(S)`$ and embed $`^4`$ in $`𝖤𝗇𝖽S`$ by $`xx^\mu \gamma _\mu `$, as usual. There is the exact sequence $`1_2𝖯𝗂𝗇_{3,1}\stackrel{Ad}{}𝖮_{3,1}1,`$ where $`Ad(U)x=UxU^1`$. There is a similar, but inequivalent, extension of $`𝖮_{3,1}`$ by $`_2`$ corresponding to $`𝖯𝗂𝗇_{1,3}`$, as well as several other extensions described in ; see also  and the references given there. Every $`U𝖯𝗂𝗇_{3,1}`$ acts on spinor fields by sending a solution $`\psi :^4S`$ of the free Dirac equation to another solution $`𝖴\psi `$,

$$(𝖴\psi )(x)=U(\psi (Ad(U^1)x)).$$

In particular, with $`\gamma _4`$ and $`\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _3𝖯𝗂𝗇_{3,1}`$, there are associated the space and time inversion operators $`𝖯`$ and $`𝖳`$, respectively. The operator $`𝖳`$ is the geometrical time inversion; if $`\psi \mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}Et)`$, then $`𝖳\psi \mathrm{exp}(+\mathrm{i}Et)`$. One can justify the interpretation of $`𝖳`$ as the time inversion operator by the Feynman idea of viewing antiparticles as particles travelling backwards in time. Physicists favour nowadays the Wigner time inversion

$$𝖳_W=𝖳𝖢.$$

Since charge conjugation is involutory, $`𝖢^2=id`$, the product of operators considered in the PCT theorem is equivalent to $`𝖯𝖳`$. This is the space-time reflection $`𝖱`$ corresponding to $`\gamma _5`$. The space-time reflection is in the connected component of the identity of the “complex” Lorentz group (=$`𝖲𝖮_4()`$). The idea underlying the PCT theorem is that, in a quantum field theory invariant only with respect to the connected component of the Poincaré group, holomorphic functions such as the vacuum expectation values of field operators, are also invariant with respect to the “complex rotation” $`𝖱`$ .

In non-relativistic quantum mechanics, there is no place for $`𝖳`$ because that theory is obtained as a limit of the relativistic theory implying, for a free particle, the removal of all negative energy states.

### Space and time inversion of Weyl spinors

Complex conjugation appears also in the realization of space and time reflections in the space of Weyl (chiral) spinors proposed by Staruszkiewicz ; see also .

Recall that the connected component of the group $`𝖲𝗉𝗂𝗇_{3,1}`$ is isomorphic to $`𝖲𝖫_2()`$. It has two inequivalent representations in the spaces of 2-component (Weyl) dotted and undotted spinors.<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2This terminology is due to van der Waerden; many people follow now Penrose and use the names: primed and unprimed “reduced” spinors; see  for references and further comments. These representations are complex conjugate one to another; their direct sum defines the representation in the space of Dirac spinors,

$$a\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ 0& \overline{a}\end{array}\right),a\underset{2}{𝖲𝖫}().$$

This decomposable representation is a restriction to $`𝖲𝖫_2()`$ of the representation of $`𝖯𝗂𝗇_{3,1}`$ determined by the Dirac matrices $`\gamma _1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{i}\sigma _1\\ \mathrm{i}\sigma _1& 0\end{array}\right),`$ $`\gamma _2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& I\\ I& 0\end{array}\right)`$, $`\gamma _3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{i}\sigma _3\\ \mathrm{i}\sigma _3& 0\end{array}\right)`$, $`\gamma _4=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _2\\ \sigma _2& 0\end{array}\right)`$. In this representation one has $`C=\gamma _2`$ and a Dirac spinor of the form

(8) 
$$\psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ \overline{u}\end{array}\right),\text{where}u^2,$$

is real in the sense that it satisfies the Majorana condition, $`𝖢\psi =\psi `$. Space and time inversions, as defined in the previous section, induce the following transformations of the Weyl part $`u`$ of the Majorana spinor (8),

$$𝖯:u\sigma _2\overline{u}\text{and}𝖳:u\mathrm{i}\sigma _2\overline{u},$$

respectively.