Commuting metric past Dirac spinors?

auditor
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
I'm wondering how in Peskin & Schroeder they go from

i\mathcal{M} = {\overline{v}^s^'} (p^{'}) (-ie\gamma^\mu)u^s(p) \left( \frac{-ig_{\mu\nu}}{q^2} \right) \overline{u}^r (k) (-ie\gamma^\nu) v^{r^{'}} (k)

at the bottom of page 131 to (5.1) at the top of 132 which reads

i\mathcal{M} = \frac{ie^2}{q^2}(\overline{v}(p^{'}) \gamma^\mu u(p) (\overline{u}(k)\gamma_\mu v(k^{'}))

Most of the stuff is ok, in particular dropping the spin superscripts. But how does the metric commute with

\overline{u}^r (k)

? I kind'a remember that the spinors are elements of the SU(2) group and that this might be related to my question. It seems as though the commutator is 0. But if I write out the metric and the Dirac spinor on matrix and vector form respectively I get a matrix product of the form

(4 x 4)\cdot (1 x 4)

which is undefined. I suspect by doing this I'm mixing apples and oranges, thus my reference to the SU(2) structure. I really don't have time to dwell in group theoretical details right now, although I'm aware that this is the only way to really get QFT. Could anyone please advice? My intuition is that, yes; they do commute, but I want to be sure.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You're thinking too hard. :smile:

g_{\mu\nu} is not the metric, it is (for each \mu and \nu) a component of the metric, i.e., a number, and, as such, commutes with everything!
 
Wow - that's true. :) Thanks a lot George, really appreciate it!
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...
Back
Top