- #1
Markus Kahn
- 112
- 14
- TL;DR Summary
- Given a spinor ##\psi## that solved the Dirac equation and a Lorentz transformation ##x\mapsto x^\prime :=\Lambda^{-1}x## such that ##\psi^\prime (x^\prime)=S\psi(x)## I'd like to show that ##S## has to satisfy
$$\Lambda^\mu{}_\nu S^{-1}\gamma^\nu S = \gamma^\mu$$
for ##\psi^\prime (x^\prime)## to be a solution of the Dirac equation.
The problem is given in the summary.
My attempt: Assume that ##\psi^\prime (x^\prime)## is a solution of the Dirac equation in the primed frame, given the transformation ##x\mapsto x^\prime :=\Lambda^{-1}x## and ##\psi^\prime (x^\prime)=S\psi(x)##, we have
$$
\begin{align*}
0&=(\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu^\prime - m)\psi^\prime (x^\prime) =(\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu^\prime - m)S\psi(x) \\
&=S(S^{-1}\gamma^\mu S \partial_\mu^\prime -m)\psi(x)\\
&=S({S^{-1}\gamma^\mu S \Lambda^{\nu}{}_\mu}\partial_\nu -m)\psi(x).
\end{align*}
$$
For the last equation to reduce to the Dirac equation, and therefore make ##\psi(x)## a solution of the Dirac equation, we need
$${S^{-1}\gamma^\mu S \Lambda^{\nu}{}_\mu}=\gamma^\nu.$$
My Professor did something similar, but not quite the same and I have a hard time judging if what we do is truly equivalent or if I'm just running in circles...
My Professors explanation: We first note that ##\psi^\prime(x^\prime)=S\psi(x)## is equivalent to ##\psi^\prime(x) = S\psi(\Lambda x)##. With this we find
$$
\begin{aligned}
0 &=\left(\gamma^{\mu} \partial_{\mu}-m\right) \psi^{\prime}(x)=\left(\gamma^{\mu} \partial_{\mu}-m\right) S \psi(\Lambda x) \\
&=\left(\gamma^{\nu} S \Lambda_{\nu}^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} \psi-S m \psi\right)(\Lambda x) \\
&=S\left(S^{-1} \gamma^{\nu} S \Lambda_{\nu}^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} \psi-\gamma^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} \psi\right)(\Lambda x) \\
&=S\left(\Lambda^{\mu}{}_{\nu} S^{-1} \gamma^{\nu} S-\gamma^{\mu}\right)\left(\partial_{\mu} \psi\right)(\Lambda x)
\end{aligned}
$$
So the term in the bracket must vanish for invariance of the Dirac equation.
The issue I have with his approach is that I don't really understand the first step, i.e. I don't see why
$$0 =\left(\gamma^{\mu} \partial_{\mu}-m\right) \psi^{\prime}(x)$$
should hold.
My attempt: Assume that ##\psi^\prime (x^\prime)## is a solution of the Dirac equation in the primed frame, given the transformation ##x\mapsto x^\prime :=\Lambda^{-1}x## and ##\psi^\prime (x^\prime)=S\psi(x)##, we have
$$
\begin{align*}
0&=(\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu^\prime - m)\psi^\prime (x^\prime) =(\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu^\prime - m)S\psi(x) \\
&=S(S^{-1}\gamma^\mu S \partial_\mu^\prime -m)\psi(x)\\
&=S({S^{-1}\gamma^\mu S \Lambda^{\nu}{}_\mu}\partial_\nu -m)\psi(x).
\end{align*}
$$
For the last equation to reduce to the Dirac equation, and therefore make ##\psi(x)## a solution of the Dirac equation, we need
$${S^{-1}\gamma^\mu S \Lambda^{\nu}{}_\mu}=\gamma^\nu.$$
My Professor did something similar, but not quite the same and I have a hard time judging if what we do is truly equivalent or if I'm just running in circles...
My Professors explanation: We first note that ##\psi^\prime(x^\prime)=S\psi(x)## is equivalent to ##\psi^\prime(x) = S\psi(\Lambda x)##. With this we find
$$
\begin{aligned}
0 &=\left(\gamma^{\mu} \partial_{\mu}-m\right) \psi^{\prime}(x)=\left(\gamma^{\mu} \partial_{\mu}-m\right) S \psi(\Lambda x) \\
&=\left(\gamma^{\nu} S \Lambda_{\nu}^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} \psi-S m \psi\right)(\Lambda x) \\
&=S\left(S^{-1} \gamma^{\nu} S \Lambda_{\nu}^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} \psi-\gamma^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} \psi\right)(\Lambda x) \\
&=S\left(\Lambda^{\mu}{}_{\nu} S^{-1} \gamma^{\nu} S-\gamma^{\mu}\right)\left(\partial_{\mu} \psi\right)(\Lambda x)
\end{aligned}
$$
So the term in the bracket must vanish for invariance of the Dirac equation.
The issue I have with his approach is that I don't really understand the first step, i.e. I don't see why
$$0 =\left(\gamma^{\mu} \partial_{\mu}-m\right) \psi^{\prime}(x)$$
should hold.