Deriving the continuity equation from the Dirac equation (Relativistic Quantum)

toam
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
So I am trying to derive the continuity equation:

\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}}J^{\mu} = 0

From the Dirac equation:

i\gamma^{\mu} \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}}\Psi - \mu\Psi = 0

And its Hermitian adjoint:

i\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}}\overline{\Psi}\gamma^{\mu} - \mu\overline{\Psi} = 0

Where:

\overline{\Psi}=\Psi^{+}\gamma^{0} (Dirac conjugate)



The Attempt at a Solution


By multiplying the Dirac equation on the right by \overline{\Psi} and the adjoint on the right by \Psi I get:

i(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}}(\gamma^{\mu}\Psi)\overline{\Psi} + \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}}(\overline{\Psi})\gamma^{\mu}\Psi) - \mu(\Psi\overline{\Psi} - \overline{\Psi}\Psi)=0

The first term is basically what I am after (except I am not 100% sure I can simply apply the product rule - what is the correct order?) which means I shoudl expect the second term to go to zero:

\Psi\overline{\Psi} - \overline{\Psi}\Psi =0

But because \gamma^{0} is a 4x4 matrix, \Psi is a 4x1 and \overline{\Psi} is a 1x4, I should also expect the second term to be multiplied by the 4x4 identity matrix (so that the subtraction makes sense). However the first term is NOT a constant multiplied by the identity so I don't see how this works.



Any help would be greatly appreciated...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
toam said:
By multiplying the Dirac equation on the right by \overline{\Psi} and the adjoint on the right by \Psi …

Hi toam! :smile:

Don't you have to multiply one of them on the left? :confused:
 
I tried that and got something else that didn't work. However I will try again because I was surprised that it didn't work so I may have made a mistake or missed something obvious...
 
Ok so it turned out I had multiplied the wrong function on the left. It worked out quite simply when I fixed that. The lecture notes had erroneously shown both functions multiplied on the right.

Thanks, tiny-tim.
 
To solve this, I first used the units to work out that a= m* a/m, i.e. t=z/λ. This would allow you to determine the time duration within an interval section by section and then add this to the previous ones to obtain the age of the respective layer. However, this would require a constant thickness per year for each interval. However, since this is most likely not the case, my next consideration was that the age must be the integral of a 1/λ(z) function, which I cannot model.
Back
Top