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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pleasehelpmeno
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dirac Hamiltonian
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion focuses on deriving the Dirac Hamiltonian using the (+,---) metric signature. Participants explore different forms of the Dirac equation and the implications of using time derivatives in the Hamiltonian expression.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how to derive a Hamiltonian that contains only the \partial_0 operator and whether a negative sign can be used with the same metric tensor convention.
  • Another participant suggests that the derivation is straightforward if one understands the theory of Dirac for constrained systems, referencing a textbook by Henneaux and Teitelboim.
  • A different participant asserts that neither of the proposed Hamiltonian expressions is valid, stating that the Hamiltonian should be expressed in terms of coordinates and momenta rather than time derivatives.
  • One participant provides the Lagrangian for the Dirac field and derives the Hamiltonian, noting that the metric used is (-+++), which contrasts with the original question's context.
  • A later reply expresses confusion regarding the presence of time derivatives in the Hamiltonians presented in the referenced papers.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the Hamiltonian forms presented in the papers, with some asserting they are incorrect while others question the reasoning behind their derivations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the correct formulation of the Hamiltonian.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made in the derivations, particularly concerning the treatment of time derivatives and the choice of metric signature. The discussion does not resolve these issues.

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 [itex]\mathcal{H}= i\psi^{\dagger}\Pi -\mathcal{L}[/itex], but in these papers the have derived two different forms of the Dirac equation [itex]H=\int d^{3}x \psi^{\dagger}i\partial_{0}\psi[/itex]http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9905242 and [itex]H=\int d^{3}x -\psi^{\dagger}i\partial_{0}\psi[/itex]http://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 [itex]\partial_0[/itex] 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
[tex]\mathcal{L} = i\bar{\psi}\gamma^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\psi - m\bar{\psi}\psi[/tex]
[tex] = i\bar{\psi}(-\gamma^0 \partial_0 + \gamma^i \partial_i )\psi - m\bar{\psi}\psi[/tex]
[tex] \mathcal{H} = \Pi \dot{\psi} - \mathcal{L}[/tex]
so
[tex] \Pi = \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{\psi}} = -i\psi^{\dagger}[/tex]
then
[tex] \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[/tex]
with metric [itex](-+++)[/itex]
 
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?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K