How did Paul Dirac find the equation for antimatter?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Quarlep
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Antimatter Matter
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the equation for antimatter by Paul Dirac, focusing on the mathematical formulation and conceptual implications of his work. Participants explore the theoretical underpinnings, including the role of negative energy solutions and the interpretation of these solutions in the context of quantum field theory (QFT).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that Dirac's equation can be derived from the relationship E² = (pc)² + (mc²)², leading to E = mc² and -E = mc².
  • Another participant clarifies that Dirac was looking to express the square root as an operator, leading to negative solutions for E, which he interpreted as filled with an infinite sea of negative energy electrons, with "holes" behaving like positrons.
  • A different viewpoint raises concerns about the implications of infinite negative energy levels, arguing that they lead to a negative infinite energy density and charge density in the vacuum, which must be reconciled with observed physical properties.
  • One participant acknowledges that while Dirac's reasoning may not be rigorously correct, it still led to the correct prediction, and mentions that modern QFT offers a more elegant treatment of antiparticles.
  • There is a suggestion that the QFT approach, which treats everything as a field, is fundamentally equivalent to Dirac's original formulation despite its elegance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity and implications of Dirac's reasoning, with some agreeing on the correctness of the prediction while questioning the rigor of the explanation. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the interpretation of negative energy solutions and their implications.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations related to the treatment of infinities in Dirac's approach and the assumptions made about vacuum energy and charge density. These issues are acknowledged but not resolved within the discussion.

Quarlep
Messages
257
Reaction score
4
How paul dirac find antimatter equation I guess It came this equation
E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2 than we pass
E2=(mc2)2
than E=mc2 and -E=mc2 isn't it ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Close. If we take the square root:
E = sqrt((pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2).
Dirac was looking for a way to express the square root as an operator, and came up with the idea of using matrices to represent the operation. But there were negative solutions for E, for the same reason as you gave, but all without dropping the term (pc)^2.

Dirac assumed that the negative solutions were already all filled up with some infinite sea of negative energy electrons. The "holes" in the negative electron energy levels behaved like positive energy positively charged electrons, e.g. positrons.

Really, Dirac's reasoning here isn't rigorously correct, but he did get the right prediction. To me, it seems he accidentally got the right prediction with a pretty bogus explanation.
 
The problem with the idea is all these damned infinities. If there are infinite negative energy levels, all filled, then all the vacuum is filled with a negative infinity energy density, and negative infinite charge density. We have to pretend that this negative infinity all equates to zero vacuum energy, zero charge, and zero of everything else.
 
Khashishi said:
Dirac's reasoning here isn't rigorously correct, but he did get the right prediction.

Hmmmm. Maybe. But a careful analysis shows the issues can be rectified.

But its bypassed these days in QFT where the creation operator is interpreted as the annihilation operator of antiparticles and conversely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle

The QFT approach is more elegant, since everything is treated as a field, but it turns out to be basically equivalent to Dirac's approach.

Thanks
Bill
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K