Deriving Dirac Hamiltonian with (+,---) Metric Signature

  • Thread starter Thread starter pleasehelpmeno
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dirac Hamiltonian
pleasehelpmeno
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
Hi can anyone explain how to derive an expression for the Dirac Hamiltonian, I thought the procedure was to use \mathcal{H}= i\psi^{\dagger}\Pi -\mathcal{L}, but in these papers the have derived two different forms of the Dirac equation H=\int d^{3}x \psi^{\dagger}i\partial_{0}\psihttp://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9905242 and H=\int d^{3}x -\psi^{\dagger}i\partial_{0}\psihttp://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0003045v3 yet both use the (+,---) metric signature.

a) does anyone know how to derive a Hamiltonian that only contains the \partial_0 operator?
b) is it possible to have this - sign in place using the same metric tensor convention?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The derivation is simple, if you know the theory of Dirac (!) for constrained systems, as the Dirac field is an example of dynamical system with class II constraints.

Check out the textbook by Henneaux and Teitelboim. Even though it's particularly addressed to gauge systems, I suspect it has a general overview of all constrained systems.
 
Neither of these expressions is valid, since the hamiltonian must be expressed in terms of the coordinates and momenta, and not their time derivatives.
 
The Lagrangian is
\mathcal{L} = i\bar{\psi}\gamma^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\psi - m\bar{\psi}\psi<br />
<br /> = i\bar{\psi}(-\gamma^0 \partial_0 + \gamma^i \partial_i )\psi - m\bar{\psi}\psi<br />
<br /> \mathcal{H} = \Pi \dot{\psi} - \mathcal{L}<br />
so
<br /> \Pi = \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{\psi}} = -i\psi^{\dagger}<br />
then
<br /> \mathcal{H} =- i\psi^{\dagger}\dot{\psi} - i\bar{\psi}(-\gamma^0 \partial_0 + \gamma^i \partial_i )\psi + m\bar{\psi}\psi = -i\bar{\psi}\gamma^i \partial_i \psi + m\bar{\psi}\psi<br />
with metric (-+++)
 
thats what i though, which is why i am confused that the above papers don't have hamiltonians in that form.

Can you think of any reason why there hamiltonains have time derivatives?
 
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top