• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,047 questions , 2,200 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,709 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
816 active unimported users
More ...

  Wick rotation and spinors

+ 7 like - 0 dislike

I am quite familiar with use of Wick rotations in QFT, but one thing annoys me: let's say we perform it for treating more conveniently (ie. making converge) a functional integral containing spinors; when we perform this Wick rotation, in a way we change the metric to (-,+,+,+) to (+,+,+,+), so the invariant group is no more SO(3,1) but SO(4) and (SO(4) being compact and the spinor representation non unitary) spinors don't carry finite dimensional representation of this group. So I feel like we shouldn't be talking anymore about this objects, but only about vectors of SO(4).

Is my fear justified? or where am I wrong in my reasoning?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 12:00 (UCT), posted by SE-user toot
asked Feb 21, 2012 in Theoretical Physics by toot (445 points) [ no revision ]
You may find this paper interesting: arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9611043

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 12:00 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
Could you specify more precisely where is the problem? Probably, illustrate it with some functional integral.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 12:00 (UCT), posted by SE-user Misha

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights