Undergrad Double sided arrow notation in Dirac Field Lagrangian

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the use of double-sided arrow notation in the Lagrangian of a Dirac field, specifically in relation to covariant derivatives. The notation is defined to express the difference between the action of derivatives on fields, which is crucial for understanding the equivalence of different Lagrangian forms. While the Lagrangian with normal partial derivatives yields the same physical results, the situation becomes complex with covariant derivatives, particularly when an external gauge field is involved. The participants highlight the need for clarity on how the action involving covariant derivatives is defined and suggest reformulating the expression to better understand its implications. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of symmetry in the formulation of the Lagrangian.
TAKEDA Hiroki
Messages
4
Reaction score
2
In a thesis, I found double sided arrow notation in the lagrangian of a Dirac field (lepton, quark etc) as follows.
\begin{equation}
L=\frac{1}{2}i\overline{\psi}\gamma^{\mu}\overset{\leftrightarrow}{D_{\mu}}\psi
\end{equation}
In the thesis, Double sided arrow is defined as follows.
\begin{equation}
A\overset{\leftrightarrow}{\partial_{\mu}}B:=A(\partial_{\mu} B)-(\partial_{\mu} A)B
\end{equation}
If covariant derivative is normal partial derivative ##D_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu}##,both
$$L=\frac{1}{2}i\overline{\psi}\gamma^{\mu}\overset{\leftrightarrow}{\partial_{\mu}}\psi$$ and $$L=\frac{1}{2}i\overline{\psi}\gamma^{\mu}{\partial_{\mu}}\psi$$ can give the same physical results, because the difference between two expressions is a total derivative.
But, in a normal covariant derivative case, I can not understand if these two expression give the same physical results. For example, when a covariant derivative is given by
$$D_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu}+ieA_{\mu}$$
,this action is defined by
\begin{equation}
\overline{\psi}\gamma^{\mu}\overset{\leftrightarrow}{D_{\mu}}\psi=\overline{\psi}\gamma^{\mu}(D_{\mu}\psi)-(D_{\mu}\overline{\psi})\gamma^{\mu}\psi
\end{equation}
?
In that case, how this action ##(D_{\mu}\overline{\psi})## is defined?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The Lagrangian density is defined up to total 4D divergences, as you correctly wrote above. Thus your Lagrangian should be equivalent to
$$\mathcal{L}=\overline{\psi} (\mathrm{i} \mathrm{D}_{\mu} \gamma^{\mu}+m) \psi.$$
It's a slight advantage to have a symmetric form of the Lagrangian, and that's why sometimes you find the symmetrized version of the Lagrangian you quoted.

I've not done the calculation, but I think as noted it's indeed not clear what the 2nd term in (3) should be. I guess to clarify this you should try to reformulate it in terms of
$$\overline{D_{\mu} \gamma^{\mu} \psi}=(D_{\mu} \gamma^{\mu} \psi)^{\dagger} \gamma^0.$$
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K