How Accurate is the Equation of Motion Derived from This Lagrangian?

Hypo86
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi!

I have the following problem with some old lecture notes I recently had a look on.

I have two different fermions (1 and 2) with masses m1 and m2
and the following Lagrangian (where the mass term for fermion 2 is dropped, because we are only interested in the dynamics of fermion 1) of the form:

\mathcal{L} = \bar{\Psi}_{1} \left( i {\not}{\partial} - {\not}{A} \left( 1 - \gamma_{5} \right) - m_{1} \right) \Psi_{1},

where

A^{\mu} = \dfrac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}} \left[ \bar{\Psi}_{2} \gamma^{\mu} \left( 1 - \gamma_{5} \right) \Psi_{2} \right] =: (\varphi, \vec{A})

If we compute the equation of motion from that (Euler-Lagrange), one finds:

\left( i \dfrac{\partial}{\partial t} - \varphi \right) \Psi_{1} =<br /> \left[ \vec{\alpha} \cdot \left( \dfrac{1}{i} \nabla - \vec{A} \right) + \beta m_{1} \right] \Psi_{1},

where \beta = \gamma^{0} and \vec{\alpha} = \beta \vec{\gamma}

I think this is not correct, because there are two (1 - \gamma_{5}) factors missing.
I find:

\left( i \dfrac{\partial}{\partial t} - \varphi ( 1 - \gamma_{5} ) \right) \Psi_{1} =<br /> \left[ \vec{\alpha} \cdot \left( \dfrac{1}{i} \nabla - \vec{A} ( 1 - \gamma_{5} \right) + \beta m_{1} \right] \Psi_{1}

Did I miss anything? I would be glad if someone could have a short look on it.
Thanks a lot!
 
Hypo86 said:
Hi!

I have the following problem with some old lecture notes I recently had a look on.

I have two different fermions (1 and 2) with masses m1 and m2
and the following Lagrangian (where the mass term for fermion 2 is dropped, because we are only interested in the dynamics of fermion 1) of the form:

\mathcal{L} = \bar{\Psi}_{1} \left( i {\not}{\partial} - {\not}{A} \left( 1 - \gamma_{5} \right) - m_{1} \right) \Psi_{1},

where

A^{\mu} = \dfrac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}} \left[ \bar{\Psi}_{2} \gamma^{\mu} \left( 1 - \gamma_{5} \right) \Psi_{2} \right] =: (\varphi, \vec{A})
Hi, welcome to PF!Can you double check what you wrote above? It does not make sense as stated. A is a gauge field, it should not be expressed in terms of the lagrangian of the second fermion. It looks like what you wrote for A^mu should be a term in the lagrangian, not A^mu
 
Hello everyone, I’m considering a point charge q that oscillates harmonically about the origin along the z-axis, e.g. $$z_{q}(t)= A\sin(wt)$$ In a strongly simplified / quasi-instantaneous approximation I ignore retardation and take the electric field at the position ##r=(x,y,z)## simply to be the “Coulomb field at the charge’s instantaneous position”: $$E(r,t)=\frac{q}{4\pi\varepsilon_{0}}\frac{r-r_{q}(t)}{||r-r_{q}(t)||^{3}}$$ with $$r_{q}(t)=(0,0,z_{q}(t))$$ (I’m aware this isn’t...
Hi, I had an exam and I completely messed up a problem. Especially one part which was necessary for the rest of the problem. Basically, I have a wormhole metric: $$(ds)^2 = -(dt)^2 + (dr)^2 + (r^2 + b^2)( (d\theta)^2 + sin^2 \theta (d\phi)^2 )$$ Where ##b=1## with an orbit only in the equatorial plane. We also know from the question that the orbit must satisfy this relationship: $$\varepsilon = \frac{1}{2} (\frac{dr}{d\tau})^2 + V_{eff}(r)$$ Ultimately, I was tasked to find the initial...
Back
Top