1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Deriving equation of motion

  1. May 20, 2015 #1
    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:

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

    where

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

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

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

    where [itex] \beta = \gamma^{0} [/itex] and [itex] \vec{\alpha} = \beta \vec{\gamma} [/itex]

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

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

    Did I miss anything? I would be glad if someone could have a short look on it.
    Thanks a lot!
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 25, 2015 #2
    Thanks for the post! This is an automated courtesy bump. Sorry you aren't generating responses at the moment. Do you have any further information, come to any new conclusions or is it possible to reword the post?
     
  4. May 25, 2015 #3

    nrqed

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member


    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
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted