How Accurate is the Equation of Motion Derived from This Lagrangian?

Hypo86
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi!

I have the following problem with some old lecture notes I recently had a look on.

I have two different fermions (1 and 2) with masses m1 and m2
and the following Lagrangian (where the mass term for fermion 2 is dropped, because we are only interested in the dynamics of fermion 1) of the form:

\mathcal{L} = \bar{\Psi}_{1} \left( i {\not}{\partial} - {\not}{A} \left( 1 - \gamma_{5} \right) - m_{1} \right) \Psi_{1},

where

A^{\mu} = \dfrac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}} \left[ \bar{\Psi}_{2} \gamma^{\mu} \left( 1 - \gamma_{5} \right) \Psi_{2} \right] =: (\varphi, \vec{A})

If we compute the equation of motion from that (Euler-Lagrange), one finds:

\left( i \dfrac{\partial}{\partial t} - \varphi \right) \Psi_{1} =<br /> \left[ \vec{\alpha} \cdot \left( \dfrac{1}{i} \nabla - \vec{A} \right) + \beta m_{1} \right] \Psi_{1},

where \beta = \gamma^{0} and \vec{\alpha} = \beta \vec{\gamma}

I think this is not correct, because there are two (1 - \gamma_{5}) factors missing.
I find:

\left( i \dfrac{\partial}{\partial t} - \varphi ( 1 - \gamma_{5} ) \right) \Psi_{1} =<br /> \left[ \vec{\alpha} \cdot \left( \dfrac{1}{i} \nabla - \vec{A} ( 1 - \gamma_{5} \right) + \beta m_{1} \right] \Psi_{1}

Did I miss anything? I would be glad if someone could have a short look on it.
Thanks a lot!
 
Hypo86 said:
Hi!

I have the following problem with some old lecture notes I recently had a look on.

I have two different fermions (1 and 2) with masses m1 and m2
and the following Lagrangian (where the mass term for fermion 2 is dropped, because we are only interested in the dynamics of fermion 1) of the form:

\mathcal{L} = \bar{\Psi}_{1} \left( i {\not}{\partial} - {\not}{A} \left( 1 - \gamma_{5} \right) - m_{1} \right) \Psi_{1},

where

A^{\mu} = \dfrac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}} \left[ \bar{\Psi}_{2} \gamma^{\mu} \left( 1 - \gamma_{5} \right) \Psi_{2} \right] =: (\varphi, \vec{A})
Hi, welcome to PF!Can you double check what you wrote above? It does not make sense as stated. A is a gauge field, it should not be expressed in terms of the lagrangian of the second fermion. It looks like what you wrote for A^mu should be a term in the lagrangian, not A^mu
 
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