Dirac spinors and commutation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties and manipulation of Dirac spinors, specifically the product of spinors and their commutation relations. Participants explore the implications of treating these spinors as vectors and matrices, and how this affects their mathematical operations within the context of quantum field theory.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the product u^r u^s\bar{u}^s is the same as u^s\bar{u}^s u^r, suggesting that they may not be interchangeable due to differing dimensions of the objects involved.
  • Another participant asserts that the expression u^r u^s\bar{u}^s equals u^s\bar{u}^s u^r, arguing that the sum of products is a scalar with respect to Lorentz transformations, thus behaving as a bosonic variable.
  • A participant expresses confusion regarding the dimensionality of the objects, noting that u^s\bar{u}^s is a 4x4 matrix while u^r is a 1x4 vector, questioning how a vector can multiply a matrix and vice versa.
  • One participant claims that the expression u^s\bar{u}^s is not well defined unless the barred spinor is placed on the left, which would yield a complex number that commutes with other variables, allowing for the interchangeability of the terms.
  • Another participant references the completeness relation for spinors, indicating that it can be expressed as a matrix, thus supporting the notion that u^s\bar{u}^s represents a matrix form.
  • A later reply acknowledges the tensor product nature of the spinors, concluding that the initial question about switching the products is answered negatively, as the operations involve different dimensionalities.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interchangeability of the spinor products, with some asserting that they can be switched under certain conditions, while others maintain that they cannot due to the nature of the objects involved. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the precise conditions under which these products can be manipulated.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the definitions and assumptions about the dimensionality of the spinors and their products, as well as the implications of Grassmann parity and tensor products that are not fully explored in the discussion.

earth2
Messages
82
Reaction score
0
Hey guys,

i'm stuck (yet again! :) )

I am somewhat confused by Dirac spinors [tex]u,\bar{u}[/tex]. Take the product (where Einstein summation convention is assumed):

[tex]u^r u^s\bar{u}^s[/tex] Is this the same as [tex]u^s\bar{u}^s u^r[/tex]? Probably not because u^r is a vector while the other thing is a matrix, right?

Cheers,
earth2
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So it's a sum after the spinor index s ? Well, then [itex]u^r u^s\bar{u}^s = u^s\bar{u}^s u^r[/itex], because the sum of products is a scalar wrt the Lorentz transformations and is a bosonic variable, as it has Grassmann parity 0.
 
Thanks! But i don't get it if i look at it in terms of vectors and matrices...

So, [tex]u^s\bar{u}^s[/tex]=4x4 matrix where [tex]u^r[/tex] is a 1x4vector. How can i then have vector times matrix = matrix times vector?
 
Last edited:
Well, actually, No, actually the [itex]u^s\bar{u}^s[/itex] is not well defined, the barred spinor should always be put on the left, so that [tex]\bar{u}^s u^s[/tex] becomes just an ordinary complex number which commutes with everything, that's why you can switch it around.

EDIT: It is well defined, as a tensor product. See the below comments.
 
Last edited:
But look for instance at the completeness relation for spinors. It is nothing but

\slashed{P}= [tex]u^s\bar{u}^s[/tex] with a sum over s. I.e. it is a matrix :) See Peskin Schröder in the beginning... :)
 
Hmm, you're right, I guess. It's a tensor product. Why didn't I realize that ? :)) So in that case, the answer to your initial question is NO, you can't switch them around. A line is multiplied by a sq. matrix and not viceversa.
 
:) Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K