Talk:Super-Poincaré algebra

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mathematics Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

other way around?[edit]

In a supersymmetric world, every boson would have a partner fermion of equal rest mass. To explore the consequences of this assertion—and to attempt to explain why the present-day world does not appear supersymmetric—physicists and mathematicians have developed an algebraic method for describing the symmetries involved.

Isn't it the other way around? The SUSY algebra came first and it predicts equal masses for the superpartners if it's unbroken. Phys 20:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Freund claims that the described way is possible and tells than Pauli suggested to look for fermions and bosons in equal number and mass in order to cancel corrections to vacuum energy. But no reference is given Arivero 16:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PGO Freund? He's a lot younger than Pauli, was he one of his students? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

clearer description of bracket[edit]

I'd really appreciate a clearer description of the bracket operation for the odd part of the algebra.169.237.31.111 (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I added a few words, but the full answer requires a discussion of the representation theory of the Lorentz group viz representation of a Lie algebra, which is out of place, here. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]