Dirac spinors in non-relativistic limit

AI Thread Summary
In the discussion on Dirac spinors in the non-relativistic limit, the focus is on demonstrating that the lower two components of the positive energy solutions are smaller than the upper two components by a factor of β. The spinor is expressed as $$\psi = \begin{pmatrix} \phi \\ \frac {\vec \sigma \cdot \vec p} {E + m} \phi \end{pmatrix}$$, with the transformation leading to $$\psi = \begin{pmatrix} \phi \\ \frac {\vec \sigma \cdot \vec v} {2} \phi \end{pmatrix}$$ in the non-relativistic limit. The confusion arises regarding the treatment of the term $$\vec \sigma \cdot \vec v$$ and its relation to the factor of β. It is suggested that the question implies showing the lower components are smaller by an order of β, rather than strictly β or β/2. The discussion emphasizes the interpretation of the factor involved in the comparison of the components.
Thomas Brady
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
So, I have to show that in the non-relativistic limit the lower two components of the positive energy solutions to the Dirac equation are smaller than the upper two components by a factor of ##\beta##.

I started with the spinor $$\psi = \begin{pmatrix} \phi \\ \frac {\vec \sigma \cdot \vec p} {E + m} \phi \end{pmatrix}$$ (##\phi## is a 2-component spinor and this doesn't include the normalization factor or the exponential)
The ##\sigma## being the Pauli matrices. Then I noted that in the non-relativistic limit ##E = \gamma m## and ##\gamma \rightarrow 1## so the denominator of the lower component is ##2m## and ##\vec p = m\vec v## in the non-relativistic limit so the m's cancel in the numerator and the denominator and I'm left with

$$\psi = \begin{pmatrix} \phi \\ \frac {\vec \sigma \cdot \vec v} {2} \phi \end{pmatrix}$$

so now I'm confused as to what to do with the ##\vec \sigma \cdot \vec v##. It seems like what I could try to do would leave the lower two components a factor of ##\frac \beta 2## smaller than the numerator.rather than just ##\beta##. So how do I approach this ##\vec \sigma \cdot \vec v##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
P.S. I used n.u. for this
 
I think that the question is meant to ask you to show that the lower two components are smaller than the upper two components by a factor of order ##\beta## (even though it wasn't stated that way explicitly.) So, you don't need to distinguish between a factor of ##\beta## and a factor of ##\beta/2##. Hope I'm not misinterpreting things here.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top