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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the accuracy of the equation of motion derived from a specific Lagrangian for fermion dynamics. The Lagrangian presented is ℒ = \bar{Ψ}_{1} (i 𝟏𝟎 − 𝟏𝟎𝑨} (1 - γ₅) - m₁) Ψ₁, where the mass term for fermion 2 is omitted. A participant identifies a potential error in the derived equation of motion, suggesting that two (1 - γ₅) factors are missing. The correct form should include these factors in both the time and spatial components of the equation of motion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lagrangian mechanics
  • Familiarity with quantum field theory concepts, specifically fermions
  • Knowledge of the Dirac equation and gamma matrices
  • Basic grasp of gauge fields and their role in particle physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the derivation of the Dirac equation from Lagrangian density
  • Study the implications of gauge invariance in quantum field theories
  • Explore the role of the gamma matrices in fermionic equations of motion
  • Investigate the significance of the (1 - γ₅) term in particle interactions
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, particularly those specializing in quantum field theory, graduate students studying particle physics, and researchers focusing on fermionic dynamics and gauge theories.

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
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K