Abstract

One of the long-standing problems in particle physics is the covariant description of higher spin states. The standard formalism is based upon totally symmetric Lorentz invariant tensors of rank-K with Dirac spinor components, $\psi _{\mu _1 \cdots \mu _K } $ , which satisfy the Dirac equation for each space time index. In addition, one requires $\partial ^{\mu _1 } \psi _{\mu _1 \cdots \mu _K } = 0{\text{ }}and{\text{ }}\gamma ^{\mu _1 } \psi _{\mu _1 \cdots \mu _K } = 0$ . The solution obtained this way (so called Rarita–Schwinger framework) describes “has–been” spin-(K+ $ - \frac{1}{2}$ ) particles in the rest frame and particles of indefinite (fuzzy) spin elsewhere. Problems occur when $\psi _{\mu _1 \cdots \mu _K } $ constrained this way are placed within an electromagnetic field. In this case, the energy of the spin-(K+ $ - \frac{1}{2}$ ) state becomes imaginary and it propagates acausally (Velo–Zwanziger problem). Here I consider two possible avenues for avoiding the above problems. First I make the case that specifically for baryon excitations there seems to be no urgency so far for a formalism that describes isolated higher-spin states as all the observed nucleon and Δ(1232) excitations (up to Δ(1600)) are exhausted by unconstrained ψ μ , $\psi _\mu ,\psi _{\mu _1 \cdots \mu _3 } {\text{ }}and{\text{ }}\psi _{\mu _1 \cdots \mu _5 } ,$ , structures which originate from rotational and vibrational excitations of an underlying quark–diquark string. Second, I show that the $\gamma ^{\mu _1 } \psi _{\mu _1 \cdots \mu _K } = 0$ constraint is a short-hand of a more general definition of the parity-singlet invariant subspace of the squared Pauli–Lubanski vector, W 2. I consider the simplest case of K=1 and construct the covariant projector onto that very state as $ - \frac{1}{3}(\frac{1}{{m^2 }}W^2 + \frac{3}{4})$ . I suggest to work in the sixteen dimensional vector space, Ψ, of the direct product of the four-vector, A μ , with the Dirac spinor, ψ, i.e., Ψ=A μ ⊗ψ, rather than keeping space-time and spinor indices separated and to consider $( - \frac{1}{3}(\frac{1}{{m^2 }}W^2 + \frac{3}{4}) - 1)\Psi = 0$ as the principal wave equation without invoking any further supplementary conditions. In gauging the equation minimally and, in calculating the determinant, one obtains the energy-momentum dispersion relation. The latter turned out to be well-behaved and free from pathologies, thus avoiding the classical Velo–Zwanziger problem