Bilinear terms in QED lagrangian under charge conjugation

faklif
Messages
17
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I want to check that the QED lagrangian \mathcal{L}=-\frac{1}{4}F^{\alpha\beta}F_{\alpha\beta} + \bar\Psi(i\displaystyle{\not} D - m)\Psi where F^{\alpha\beta} = \partial^\alpha A^\beta - \partial^\beta A^\alpha, \ D^\mu = \partial^\mu - ieA^\mu is invariant under charge conjugation which is given as A_\mu \rightarrow A'_\mu = -A_\mu, \ \Psi \rightarrow \Psi' = -i(\bar\Psi \gamma^0\gamma^2)^T.

Homework Equations


See above.

The Attempt at a Solution


I have computed \bar\Psi \rightarrow \bar\Psi' = \Psi'\gamma^0 = -i(\gamma^0\gamma^2\Psi)^T which I have then checked in Peskin and Schroeder.

Next I wanted to compute \bar\Psi \Psi \rightarrow \bar\Psi' \Psi' = -i(\gamma^0\gamma^2\Psi)^T(-i\bar\Psi \gamma^0\gamma^2)^T = -(\bar\Psi \gamma^0\gamma^2)(\gamma^0\gamma^2\Psi) = - \bar\Psi \Psi. Where I transpose the whole expression which I thought should be ok since the Lagrangian is 1x1 and use \gamma^0\gamma^2\gamma^0\gamma^2 = I. Checking this in P&S is not as fun since it's wrong, there should be no minus sign. What am I doing wrong?

I also don't quite understand the computation in P&S which is \bar\Psi \Psi \rightarrow \bar\Psi' \Psi' = -i(\gamma^0\gamma^2\Psi)^T(-i\bar\Psi \gamma^0\gamma^2)^T = -\gamma^0_{ab}\gamma^2_{bc}\Psi_c\bar\Psi_d\gamma^0_{de}\gamma^2_{ea} = \bar\Psi_d\gamma^0_{de}\gamma^2_{ea}\gamma^0_{ab}\gamma^2_{bc}\Psi_c = -\bar\Psi\gamma^2\gamma^0\gamma^0\gamma^2\Psi = \bar\Psi \Psi. What I don't understand is the step between the two expressions with indices, why does the sign change?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I've kept studying and I think that the minus sign which appears is from \{\Psi_a(x),\Psi_b(y)\} = \delta(x-y)\delta_{ab}. What I don't understand is what happens at x=y with a=b? Don't I have to account for this as well since the sum is over all a and b and not limited in space?
 
To solve this, I first used the units to work out that a= m* a/m, i.e. t=z/λ. This would allow you to determine the time duration within an interval section by section and then add this to the previous ones to obtain the age of the respective layer. However, this would require a constant thickness per year for each interval. However, since this is most likely not the case, my next consideration was that the age must be the integral of a 1/λ(z) function, which I cannot model.
Back
Top