- #1
pellman
- 684
- 5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_matrices#Normalization
See the image below. Which of us is right: me or Wikipedia?
See the image below. Which of us is right: me or Wikipedia?
pellman said:
Orodruin said:Wikipedia is usually pretty reliable.
Orodruin said:##\gamma^0## also transforms ... Wikipedia is usually pretty reliable.
It's true that S(Λ) is not unitary. But, in place of that it does obey a condition sufficient to guarantee that the hermiticity conditions are invariant. Instead of SS† = I, it obeys Sγ0S† = γ0.The hermiticity conditions are not invariant under the action [itex]\gamma^\mu \to S(\Lambda) \gamma^\mu {S(\Lambda)}^{-1}[/itex] of a Lorentz transformation [itex]\Lambda[/itex] because [itex]S(\Lambda)[/itex] is not necessarily a unitary transformation due to the noncompactness of the Lorentz group.
Bill_K said:it obeys Sγ0S† = γ0.
I think what it says is that γ0 is the metric for Dirac spinors. That is, Sγ0S† = γ0 is analogous to ΛηΛT = η, where η is the Minkowski metric.pellman said:I haven't proved this but I checked it for a few cases. Seems to be the case. So this is to say that γ0 is invariant under Lorentz transformations?
This happens so often on PF. Clear, simple answers are hard to come by, because of a desire to make things as complicated and general as possible. Yes, it's true that γ0 is not the only matrix that can be used in Sγ0S† = γ0, there's an arbitrary phase that can be thrown in. But the obvious choice is to use γ0 itself.Avodyne said:The confusing point is that the γ0 in Sγ0S† = γ0 is actually not the μ=0 component of γμ.
Actually Weinberg Eq(5.4.13) calls β = i γ0.It's a different matrix that is given a different name by more careful authors; for example, Weinberg and Srednicki both call it β.
Bill_K said:I think what it says is that γ0 is the metric for Dirac spinors. That is, Sγ0S† = γ0 is analogous to ΛηΛT = η, where η is the Minkowski metric.
Demystifier said:An alternative view of Lorentz covariance of the Dirac equation:
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1309.7070 [Eur. J. Phys. 35, 035003 (2014)]
pellman said:I was thinking that the gamma matrices in the boosted frame were
[itex]S^{-1}\gamma^{\mu} S[/itex]. I think this was problem all along.
samalkhaiat said:The relation
[tex]S^{ - 1 } ( \Lambda ) \gamma^{ \mu } S ( \Lambda ) = \Lambda^{ \mu }{}_{ \nu } \gamma^{ \nu } ,[/tex]
IS NOT a transformation law for the gamma’s, rather IT IS a condition on the [itex]SO(1,3)[/itex]-representation matrices, [itex]S ( \Lambda_{ 1 } ) S( \Lambda_{ 2 } ) = S ( \Lambda_{ 1 } \Lambda_{ 2 } )[/itex], that allows you to use the same [itex]\gamma^{ \mu }[/itex]’s in all Lorentz frames.
stevendaryl said:Well, I think that there are multiple interpretations.
There is an algebra for working with vectors called Clifford algebras, which is an associative algebra with the vector multiplication rule:
[itex]e_\mu e_\nu + e_\nu e_\mu = 2 g_{\mu \nu}[/itex]
An arbitrary element of this algebra can be written as a linear combination of basis elements, and there are 16 of them: the identity, a pseudoscalar [itex]\rho = e_0 e_1 e_2 e_3[/itex], 4 vectors [itex]e_0, e_1, e_2, e_3[/itex], 6 bivectors [itex]e_0 e_1, e_0 e_2, e_0 e_3, e_1 e_2, e_2 e_3, e_3 e_1[/itex], 4 pseudo-vectors [itex]\rho e_0, \rho e_1, \rho e_2, \rho e_3[/itex].
This is of course the algebra of gamma-matrices. But under the Clifford algebra interpretation, [itex]\gamma_\mu[/itex] is a basis vector in the [itex]\mu[/itex] direction, rather than the [itex]\mu[/itex] component of a vector. So as a vector, [itex]\gamma_\mu[/itex] would transform under a Lorentz transformation according to
[itex]\gamma_\mu' = \Lambda^\nu_\mu \gamma_\nu'[/itex]
samalkhaiat said:There are no “multiple interpretations”. There is misunderstanding and confusion.
No, I did not even mention that unnecessary garbage.stevendaryl said:So are you saying that the geometric algebra approach is mistaken?
Yes okay, check your information. Even in that approach, local observablesI had the impression that mathematically, it was equivalent to what was done using matrices, but without actually ever introducing matrices.
In Dirac’s theory and Dirac representation of Clifford algebra, which we were talking about, the gammas are matrices not numbers.In the geometric algebra approach, the terms [itex]\gamma^\mu[/itex] are interpreted as basis vectors, not matrices at all.
stevendaryl said:Well, I think that there are multiple interpretations.
I also think that there ARE different interpretations, and the paper in my post above presents one alternative interpretation in which gamma matrices transform as a vector, while "Dirac" wave function transforms as a scalar.samalkhaiat said:There are no “multiple interpretations”.
samalkhaiat said:No, I did not even mention that unnecessary garbage.
Demystifier said:Of course, Samalkhaiat is right that this is rigorous mathematics, not QM. But rigorous mathematics is always based on some axioms, and there is always some freedom in choosing axioms. So if you change some axioms, you obtain different results (theorems). The paper mentioned above changes some axioms. When stevendaryl and I say "different interpretations" we really mean "different axioms".
Demystifier said:I also think that there ARE different interpretations, and the paper in my post above presents one alternative interpretation in which gamma matrices transform as a vector, while "Dirac" wave function transforms as a scalar.
Starting from (11), consider the transformation
[tex]( S^{ -1 } \psi )^{ ' } = S S^{ -1 } \psi = \psi . \ \ \ \ \ (52)[/tex]
This shows that [itex]S^{ -1 } \psi[/itex] transforms as a scalar, so I define the scalar
[tex]\Psi = S^{ -1 } \psi . \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (53)[/tex]
When stevendaryl and I say "different interpretations" we really mean "different axioms".
samalkhaiat said:How can a bi-spinor be a scalar?