Question regarding Dirac matrices

In summary: U should pay attention with this "Lorentz covariance" and always try to see these expressions as tensor products of 4-vectors.
  • #1
peperone
14
0
Hey there.

In an exercise I was trying to show that every solution of the Dirac equation also solves the Klein-Gordon equation.

Now I have two very simple questions:

Is [tex]\gamma_\nu \gamma^\mu = \gamma^\nu \gamma_\mu[/tex] ?

And is [tex]\partial_\nu \partial^\mu = \partial^\nu \partial_\mu[/tex] ?

Thanks for the help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Not really.U should pay attention with this "Lorentz covariance" and always try to see these expressions as tensor products of 4-vectors.

Daniel.
 
  • #3
I kinda felt it couldn't be that simple. :p

Thanks anyway.
 
  • #4
Can anybody verify this?

[tex]\gamma^\nu\partial_\nu\gamma_\mu\partial^\mu = \partial_\mu\partial^\mu[/tex]

Just as clarification: I am trying to show that every solution of the Dirac equation also solves the Klein-Gordon equation. So I started with the Dirac equation:

[tex](i\gamma_\mu\partial^\mu - m)\Psi(x) = 0[/tex]

Then, I multiplied it with the operator [tex]-(i\gamma^\nu\partial_\nu + m)[/tex] (from left) which gave me:

[tex](\gamma^\nu\partial_\nu\gamma_\mu\partial^\mu + m^2)\Psi(x) = 0[/tex]

This surely looks somewhat like the Klein-Gordan equation if the above assumption is correct. I just fail to see why it is true.

Any hints appreciated!
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Yes,it can be shown easily once you manipulate the Lorentz indices and the anticommutation relation between the gamma's.
[tex] \gamma_{\nu}\partial^{\nu}\gamma_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}=\gamma_{\nu}\gamma_{\mu}\partial^{\nu}\partial^{\mu}=\frac{1}{2}\gamma_{(\nu}\gamma_{\mu)}\partial^{\nu}\partial^{\mu}=g_{\mu\nu}\partial^{\nu}\partial^{\mu}=d'alembertian [/tex]

Daniel.

P.S.Did u follow the reasoning...?
 
  • #6
Why's the KG equation:

[tex] (\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}-m^{2})\Psi (\vec{r},t) =0 [/tex]

,instead of:

[tex] -(\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}+m^{2})\Psi (\vec{r},t)=0 [/tex]

What metric are u using...?

Daniel.
 
  • #7
dextercioby said:
Why's the KG equation:

[tex] (\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}-m^{2})\Psi (\vec{r},t) =0 [/tex]

,instead of:

[tex] -(\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}+m^{2})\Psi (\vec{r},t)=0 [/tex]

Sorry, it was just a typo. I edited my post. Thanks for all the help. I think I got it now...

Start with the Dirac equation:

[tex](i\gamma_\mu\partial^\mu - m)\Psi(x) = 0[/tex]

Multiply the operator [tex]-(i\gamma_\mu\partial^\mu + m)[/tex] (from left):

[tex](\gamma_\mu\partial^\mu\gamma_\mu\partial^\mu + m^2)\Psi(x) = (\gamma_\mu\gamma_\mu\partial^\mu\partial^\mu + m^2)\Psi(x) = 0[/tex]

Because of the anticommutation relation [tex]\{\gamma^\mu,\gamma^\nu\} = 2 g^{\mu\nu}[/tex] it is possible to simplify [tex]\gamma_\mu\gamma_\mu[/tex] to [tex]g_{\mu\mu}[/tex] which proves [tex]\gamma_\mu\gamma_\mu\partial^\mu\partial^\mu = \partial^\mu\partial_\mu[/tex].

Thanks again.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Note that u have 4 identical (Lorentz) indices in the same tensor equation and that's not good,not good at all.
Pay attention with these indices,as u might confuse them.

Daniel.
 
  • #9
Hm, that's true. Do you know a better way? I'm highly interested in alternative solutions.
 
  • #10
dextercioby said:
Yes,it can be shown easily once you manipulate the Lorentz indices and the anticommutation relation between the gamma's.
[tex] \gamma_{\nu}\partial^{\nu}\gamma_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}=\gamma_{\nu}\gamma_{\mu}\partial^{\nu}\partial^{\mu}=\frac{1}{2}\gamma_{(\nu}\gamma_{\mu)}\partial^{\nu}\partial^{\mu}=g_{\mu\nu}\partial^{\nu}\partial^{\mu}=d'alembertian [/tex]

To be honest, I don't understand what you're doing here (step 2 -> step 3)
 
  • #11
You multiply with the same operator,but with index "nu" (instead of "mu") and then use the trick I've used in post #5.It should come out nicely.


Daniel.
 
  • #12
peperone said:
To be honest, I don't understand what you're doing here (step 2 -> step 3)

[tex] \gamma_{\nu}\gamma_{\mu}T^{\nu\mu}=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma_{\nu}\gamma_{\mu}+\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{\nu})T^{\mu\nu} [/tex]

where T is a symmetric second rank tensor and to get the second term from the bracket i turned "mu"--->"nu" and "nu"---->"mu" and to factor the same tensor i used the fact that under this renotation,the tensor T is symmetric.

Daniel.
 
  • #13
This surely looks slick! :) But why is [tex]\partial^\nu\partial^\mu[/tex] a symmetric second rank tensor?
 
  • #14
Because wrt bosonic coordinates,the partial derivatives commute.

Daniel.
 

Related to Question regarding Dirac matrices

1. What are Dirac matrices?

Dirac matrices are a set of mathematical objects used in the field of theoretical physics, specifically in quantum mechanics. They were introduced by physicist Paul Dirac to describe the properties and behavior of particles at the quantum level.

2. How are Dirac matrices represented?

Dirac matrices are typically represented as 4x4 matrices with complex numbers as entries. They can also be represented using the Dirac notation, which uses a combination of matrices and column vectors to represent the properties of quantum particles.

3. What is the significance of Dirac matrices in quantum mechanics?

Dirac matrices are essential in quantum mechanics because they help describe the spin and angular momentum of particles, as well as their interactions with electromagnetic fields. They also play a crucial role in the Dirac equation, which describes the behavior of fermions.

4. How are Dirac matrices related to the Pauli matrices?

The Pauli matrices are a subset of Dirac matrices, specifically the 2x2 matrices that correspond to spin ½ particles. They are the simplest form of Dirac matrices and are used to describe the spin of particles in quantum mechanics.

5. Can Dirac matrices be used to describe all particles?

No, Dirac matrices are specifically used to describe fermions, which are particles with half-integer spin. They cannot be used to describe bosons, which are particles with integer spin. However, they can be extended to describe other types of particles, such as neutrinos.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
806
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
889
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
249
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
3K
Back
Top