QFT: Does Dirac Equation Reduce to Pauli's?

  • Thread starter ghery
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Qft
In summary, the Dirac equation that describes particles with spin ½, reduces to the Pauli equation when the non-relativistic limit is taken.
  • #1
ghery
34
0
Hello:

In quantum field theory, there is the Klein-Gordon Equation that describes particles with Spin 0, this equation reduces to the SchÖdinger equation when the non relativistic limit is taken, Does the Dirac equation that describes particles with spin ½, reduce to Pauli's equation when the non-relativistic limit is taken? and if it does reduce, could you explain me how?

Regards
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I know that Dirac reduces to Pauli equation, can give you a pdf I have if you send me a PM.


But for KG, which is non-linear, I don't know.
 
  • #3
malawi_glenn said:
But for KG, which is non-linear, I don't know.
KG is linear but 2nd order. A wave satisfying Dirac does satisfy KG as well.
 
  • #4
Ah, well, yes :-) I think I meant 2nd order.. hehe
 
  • #5
ghery said:
In quantum field theory, there is the Klein-Gordon Equation that describes particles with Spin 0, this equation reduces to the SchÖdinger equation when the non relativistic limit is taken,

The Klein-Gordon equation alone does not reduce to the Schrödinger equation in the non-relativistic limit. The Klein-Gordon equation has both positive and negative frequency solutions, and the Schrödinger's equation has only positive frequency solutions, but the negative frequency solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation don't vanish in the non-relativistic limit.

In other words, the non-relativistic solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation are linear combinations of solutions of the equations

[tex]
\pm i\hbar\partial_t\psi = H\psi.
[/tex]
 
  • #6
Relativistically covariant quantized Schrödinger equation...


I note that in the Schrödinger equation, when momentum is zero, the energy is also zero. This equation does not account for the particle rest energy. This is why this equation is not relativistically covariant and is not invariant under a Lorentz transformation.

Schrödinger equation for a free particle is:
[tex]- \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \nabla^2 \ \psi = i \hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi[/tex]

[tex]\boxed{\nabla = 0 \; \; \; i \hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi = 0}[/tex]

However, for the Klein–Gordon equation, when momentum is zero, energy is equivalent to the particle rest energy.

Klein–Gordon equation is:
[tex]- \hbar^2 c^2 \mathbf{\nabla}^2 \psi + m^2 c^4 \psi = - \hbar^2 \frac{\partial^2}{(\partial t)^2} \psi[/tex]

[tex]\nabla = 0 \; \; \; \hbar^2 \frac{\partial^2}{(\partial t)^2} \psi = m^2 c^4 \psi[/tex]
[tex]\boxed{\nabla = 0 \; \; \; i \hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi = m c^2 \psi}[/tex]

[tex]m = 0 \; \; \; - \hbar^2 c^2 \mathbf{\nabla}^2 \psi = - \hbar^2 \frac{\partial^2}{(\partial t)^2} \psi[/tex]

[tex]\boxed{m = 0 \; \; \; - i \hbar c \nabla \psi = i \hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi}[/tex]

Therefore, the equation I derived for a relativistically covariant Schrödinger equation:
[tex]- \frac{\hbar c}{\overline{\lambda}} \nabla \psi + mc^2 \psi = i \hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi[/tex]

[tex]\boxed{\nabla = 0 \; \; \; i \hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi = m c^2 \psi}[/tex]

Relativistically covariant quantized Schrödinger equation:
[tex]\boxed{- i \hbar c \nabla \psi + mc^2 \psi = i \hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi}[/tex]

[tex]\boxed{m = 0 \; \; \; - i \hbar c \nabla \psi = i \hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi}[/tex]

Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_particle#Non-Relativistic_Quantum_Free_Particle"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein-Gordon_equation#Derivation"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
Orion, all this was done in the 1920's, we all know how the story goes.

Besides, is [tex] p + m [/tex]
An apropriate hamiltonian? I would say that its not.
 
  • #8


I have two comments.

Orion1 said:
I note that in the Schrödinger equation, when momentum is zero, the energy is also zero. This equation does not account for the particle rest energy. This is why this equation is not relativistically covariant and is not invariant under a Lorentz transformation.

Not agreed. The solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation

[tex]
-\hbar^2\partial_t^2\psi = m^2c^4\psi - \hbar^2 c^2\nabla^2\psi
[/tex]

are linear combinations of the solutions of the equations

[tex]
\pm i\hbar\partial_t\psi = \sqrt{m^2c^4 - \hbar^2 c^2\nabla^2}\psi.
[/tex]

So if we are only interested in the positive frequency solutions with no relativistic frequencies, this equation can be approximated to be

[tex]
i\hbar\partial_t\psi = \Big(mc^2 - \frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2\Big)\psi.
[/tex]

So when we arrive at the Schrödinger's equation in this way, the rest energy term is there. The Schrödinger's equation in any case is not Lorentz invariant, for the simple reason that it has some non-trivial transforming in boosts. The rest energy term is not key issue with Lorentz invariance. The reason why the rest term can be dropped is that it has no relevance, since only energy differences matter.
[tex]m = 0 \; \; \; - \hbar^2 c^2 \mathbf{\nabla}^2 \psi = - \hbar^2 \frac{\partial^2}{(\partial t)^2} \psi[/tex]

[tex]\boxed{m = 0 \; \; \; - i \hbar c \nabla \psi = i \hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi}[/tex]

In this equation the right side is a complex number (a member of [tex]\mathbb{C}[/tex]), and the left side is a three component object (a member of [tex]\mathbb{C}^3[/tex]). The equation doesn't mean anything.
 
  • #9
man why didn't I see that before you did Jostpuur? :-(

he seems to think that one can square-root operators as if they would been ordinary numbers..
 
  • #10
These are not " equations of QFT" at all! In QFT the Dirac equation, Klein Gordon equation, etc. are to be interpreted as classical field equations that have yet to be quantized.

So, this is all classical physics.
 
  • #11
Count Iblis said:
So, this is all classical physics.
Good point :rolleyes:
 
  • #12


Orion1 said:

I note that in the Schrödinger equation, when momentum is zero, the energy is also zero. This equation does not account for the particle rest energy. This is why this equation is not relativistically covariant and is not invariant under a Lorentz transformation.

Schrödinger equation for a free particle is:
[tex]- \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \nabla^2 \ \psi = i \hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi[/tex]

[tex]\boxed{\nabla = 0 \; \; \; i \hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi = 0}[/tex]

However, for the Klein–Gordon equation, when momentum is zero, energy is equivalent to the particle rest energy.

Klein–Gordon equation is:
[tex]- \hbar^2 c^2 \mathbf{\nabla}^2 \psi + m^2 c^4 \psi = - \hbar^2 \frac{\partial^2}{(\partial t)^2} \psi[/tex]

[tex]\nabla = 0 \; \; \; \hbar^2 \frac{\partial^2}{(\partial t)^2} \psi = m^2 c^4 \psi[/tex]
[tex]\boxed{\nabla = 0 \; \; \; i \hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi = m c^2 \psi}[/tex]

[tex]m = 0 \; \; \; - \hbar^2 c^2 \mathbf{\nabla}^2 \psi = - \hbar^2 \frac{\partial^2}{(\partial t)^2} \psi[/tex]

[tex]\boxed{m = 0 \; \; \; - i \hbar c \nabla \psi = i \hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi}[/tex]

Therefore, the equation I derived for a relativistically covariant Schrödinger equation:
[tex]- \frac{\hbar c}{\overline{\lambda}} \nabla \psi + mc^2 \psi = i \hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi[/tex]

[tex]\boxed{\nabla = 0 \; \; \; i \hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi = m c^2 \psi}[/tex]

Relativistically covariant quantized Schrödinger equation:
[tex]\boxed{- i \hbar c \nabla \psi + mc^2 \psi = i \hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi}[/tex]

[tex]\boxed{m = 0 \; \; \; - i \hbar c \nabla \psi = i \hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi}[/tex]

If I was a judge, I would issue an arrest warrant for this nonsense.:smile:

sam
 
  • #13
jostpuur said:
The Klein-Gordon equation alone does not reduce to the Schrödinger equation in the non-relativistic limit.

In the K-G equation

[tex]
\frac{1}{c^{2}} \frac{\partial^{2} \phi}{\partial t^{2}} - \nabla^{2} \phi + ( \frac{mc}{\hbar})^{2} \phi = 0
[/tex]

1) put

[tex]
\phi = \exp \{\frac{i}{\hbar} ( S - mc^{2} t ) \}
[/tex]


2) take the non-relativistic limit: [itex]c \rightarrow \infty[/itex] , then put

[tex]
\Psi = e^{iS/ \hbar}
[/tex]

and get

[tex]
\frac{\hbar}{i} \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \Psi = \frac{ \hbar^{2}}{2m} \nabla^{2} \Psi
[/tex]

What do you call this equation?

regards

sam
 
  • #14
samalkhaiat said:
1) put

[tex]
\phi = \exp \{\frac{i}{\hbar} ( S - mc^{2} t ) \}
[/tex]

I don't want to put this.

The wave packet solutions of Klein-Gordon equation can be in general written in the form

[tex]
\phi(t,\boldsymbol{x}) = \int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi\hbar)^3}\Big(\phi^+_{\boldsymbol{p}} e^{i(\boldsymbol{x}\cdot\boldsymbol{p} \;-\; \sqrt{|\boldsymbol{p}|^2 c^2 + m^2c^4}t)/\hbar} \;+\; \phi^-_{\boldsymbol{p}} e^{i(\boldsymbol{x}\cdot\boldsymbol{p} \;+\; \sqrt{|\boldsymbol{p}|^2 c^2 + m^2c^4}t)/\hbar}\Big)
[/tex]

The wave packet solutions of the Schrödinger's equation instead have the form

[tex]
\psi(t,\boldsymbol{x}) = \int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi\hbar)^3} \phi_{\boldsymbol{p}} e^{i(\boldsymbol{x}\cdot\boldsymbol{p} \;-\; (|\boldsymbol{p}|^2/(2m))t)/\hbar}
[/tex]

If we substitute the non-relativistic approximation

[tex]
\sqrt{|\boldsymbol{p}|^2c^2 + m^2c^4} \approx mc^2 + \frac{|\boldsymbol{p}|^2}{2m}
[/tex]

into the solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation, and absorb the rest mass somewhere (like into the definition of the phi as its background phase oscillation), we get

[tex]
\phi(t,\boldsymbol{x}) \approx \int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi\hbar)^3}\Big(\phi^+_{\boldsymbol{p}} e^{i(\boldsymbol{x}\cdot\boldsymbol{p} \;-\; (|\boldsymbol{p}|^2/(2m))t)/\hbar} \;+\; \phi^-_{\boldsymbol{p}} e^{i(\boldsymbol{x}\cdot\boldsymbol{p} \;+\; (|\boldsymbol{p}|^2/(2m))t)/\hbar}\Big)
[/tex]

and this is not necessarily a solution of the Schrödinger's equation.

Count Iblis said:
So, this is all classical physics.

For me, for now, these are merely equations.
 

1. What is the Dirac Equation and how does it relate to Pauli's equation?

The Dirac Equation is a relativistic wave equation that describes the behavior of fermions, such as electrons, in quantum mechanics. It was developed by physicist Paul Dirac in the 1920s. Pauli's equation, on the other hand, is a non-relativistic approximation of the Dirac equation that describes the spin of an electron. The Dirac Equation reduces to Pauli's equation in the non-relativistic limit.

2. Why is it important to study the relationship between Dirac and Pauli's equations?

Studying the relationship between these two equations allows us to better understand the behavior of fermions, which are fundamental particles that make up matter. It also helps us to bridge the gap between quantum mechanics and relativity, which are two important theories in physics.

3. What are the key differences between Dirac and Pauli's equations?

Dirac's equation is a relativistic wave equation that takes into account the spin of an electron, while Pauli's equation is a non-relativistic approximation that does not consider spin. Additionally, Dirac's equation has four components, while Pauli's equation only has two components.

4. How does the reduction from Dirac to Pauli's equation occur?

The reduction from Dirac to Pauli's equation occurs by taking the non-relativistic limit, which involves setting the speed of light to infinity. This leads to the elimination of two of the four components of the Dirac equation, resulting in Pauli's equation.

5. What are some real-world applications of Dirac and Pauli's equations?

Dirac and Pauli's equations have been used to explain various phenomena in particle physics, such as the behavior of electrons in magnetic fields and the spin of particles. They have also been applied in the development of technologies like transistors and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
792
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
11
Replies
370
Views
9K
Back
Top