Equivalent representations for Dirac algebra

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the equivalent representations for Dirac algebra, specifically focusing on the gamma matrices and their transformations. Participants explore the mathematical structures and relationships between different representations, such as the Weyl and Dirac representations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • One participant considers treating the representations as a basis for the gamma matrices vector space and questions the validity of this approach. Others suggest looking up existing representations for clarification. There are discussions about deriving a specific transformation matrix and the methods to achieve this, including finding eigenvalues and normalizing matrices.

Discussion Status

The conversation includes attempts to clarify the process of finding transformation matrices and the implications of different representations. Some participants express uncertainty about their methods, while others share insights and resources. There is no explicit consensus, but productive lines of inquiry are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention references to literature, such as Itzykson's book, and discuss the challenge of deriving results from appendices with limited explanations. There is also a mention of a related question in another thread, indicating a broader context of inquiry.

Wledig
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Homework Statement
Consider the following representations that satisfy the Dirac algebra:

$$ \gamma^0 =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1
\end{pmatrix}
$$

$$
\gamma^i=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \sigma^i \\
-\sigma^i & 0
\end{pmatrix}
$$

and

$$ \gamma^0 =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
$$


$$ \gamma^i=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \sigma^i \\
-\sigma^i & 0
\end{pmatrix}
$$

Show that they are equivalent, that is write a 4x4 unitary matrix U such that:
$$\gamma^{\mu}_B = U\gamma^{\mu}_A U^\dagger$$
Relevant Equations
Dirac algebra: ##\{ \gamma^\mu , \gamma^\nu \} = 2\eta^{\mu \nu}##
Where ##\eta^{\mu \nu} ## is the metric tensor from special relativity.
One thing I was thinking about doing was to consider these representations as a basis for the gamma matrices vector space, then try to determine what the change of basis from one to the other would be. However I'm unsure if it's correct to treat the representations as a basis, or whether this is the right approach at all.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you looked up the Weyl- and Dirac representation, e.g. on Wikipedia?
(Hint: check the other languages)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Wledig
Alright, so after searching a bit I managed to find U in an appendix in the book by Itzykson:
$$ U = \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1+\gamma_5\gamma_0) = \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -1 \\
1 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
$$
I've tested for ##\gamma^0##, so I'm convinced it works, but I still don't know how to reach this matrix. Like I've said it was found in an appendix, without much explanation to go along with it.
 
Forget it, I figured it out. Just needed to find the eigenvalues of the Weyl representation then normalize the eigenvector matrix to make it unitary, it's simpler than I thought.
 
Wledig said:
Alright, so after searching a bit I managed to find U in an appendix in the book by Itzykson:
$$ U = \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1+\gamma_5\gamma_0) = \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -1 \\
1 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
$$
I've tested for ##\gamma^0##, so I'm convinced it works, but I still don't know how to reach this matrix. Like I've said it was found in an appendix, without much explanation to go along with it.
It's hard to tell how to find if you've seen the answer, which I did when I looked up the definitions. The spatial ##\gamma^i## should remain unchanged, so it's probably an idea to focus on ##\gamma^0##.

The hard way to find ##U## is probably to solve the equations ##U(\{\,\gamma^i,\gamma^j\,\})=\{\,U(\gamma^i),U(\gamma^j)\,\}##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Wledig
I'm afraid I have no idea. I am no physicist and don't know what the other variables are or how they multiply. But you didn't use the given hint. I would wait as long as possible, before I'd substituted the definition of ##D_\mu##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Wledig
That's alright, thanks for the tip.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K