Difference in Sign for 6.4 Equation

  • Thread starter Thread starter touqra
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Difference Sign
touqra
Messages
284
Reaction score
0
I have a hard time trying to derive the equation in 6.4 . This is what I've done, and as you will see I have a sign difference compared to his.
http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=PRVDAQ000070000001015012000001&idtype=cvips&prog=normal
Starting with page 8, equation 6.2, considering the second term in the action, i.e.

D_{\mu}\overline{\psi}\gamma^{\mu}\psi

note: the author used the four-component Dirac spinor as \left(<br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> \chi\\<br /> \overline{\psi}<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)<br />

I also calculated some identities:
\psi* \gamma^0 \gamma^{\mu} = \gamma^0 \gamma^{\mu} \psi*
\gamma^{\mu}\gamma_{\mu} = 4
\{\gamma^{\mu} , \gamma^{\nu}\} = 2g^{\mu\nu}

With these,
I obtain for \frac{1}{4z}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}\overline{\Psi}\gamma^{\mu}\Psi = \frac{-2}{z}(\chi\psi - \overline{\chi}\overline{\psi})

I have a sign difference with the author's in equation 6.4
I calculated for the first term too. Still a sign difference. In fact, I get something like \frac{3}{z} (\chi\psi - \overline{\chi}\overline{\psi})
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
you might want to provide the name of the book you're using?
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top