I How Peskin & Schroeder simplified this horrible product of bilinears?

Click For Summary
Peskin & Schroeder's work simplifies the calculation of bilinear expressions involving sigma matrices, specifically addressing the exchange of indices in the context of their identities. The discussion highlights the importance of using precise references, such as page and equation numbers, to facilitate quicker assistance. Key observations include the properties of sigma matrices, particularly the behavior of the antisymmetric matrix \(i\sigma^2\) and its implications for transposition. The identity involving the Pauli matrices is crucial for understanding the transformations required in the calculations. Overall, the thread emphasizes clarity in mathematical communication and the nuances of matrix manipulation in theoretical physics.
hamad12a
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
I couldn't understand how to pass from sigma to sigma bar Pauli matrices.
P&S had calculated this expression almost explicitly, except that I didn't find a way to exchange the $$\nu \lambda$$ indices, but I'm sure the below identity is used,

$$
\begin{aligned}\left(\overline{u}_{1 L} \overline{\sigma}^{\mu} \sigma^{\nu} \overline{\sigma}^{\lambda} u_{2 L}\right)\left(\overline{u}_{3 L} \overline{\sigma}_{\mu} \sigma_{\nu} \overline{\sigma}_{\lambda} u_{4 L}\right) &=2 \epsilon_{\alpha \gamma} \overline{u}_{1 L \alpha} \overline{u}_{3 L \gamma} \epsilon_{\beta \delta}\left(\sigma^{\nu} \overline{\sigma}^{\lambda} u_{2 L}\right)_{\beta}\left(\sigma_{\nu} \overline{\sigma}_{\lambda} u_{4 L}\right)_{\delta} \\ &=2 \epsilon_{\alpha \gamma} \overline{u}_{1 L \alpha} \overline{u}_{3 L \gamma} \epsilon_{\beta \delta} u_{2 L \beta}\left(\sigma^{\lambda} \overline{\sigma}^{\nu} \sigma_{\nu} \overline{\sigma}_{\lambda} u_{4 L}\right)_{\delta} \end{aligned}
$$

The identity is,

$$
\epsilon_{\alpha \beta}\left(\sigma^{\mu}\right)_{\beta \gamma}=\left(\overline{\sigma}^{\mu T}\right)_{\alpha \beta} \epsilon_{\beta \gamma}
$$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When asking questions of this kind, you'd get more help more quickly if you state the precise page number(s) and equation number(s), instead of expecting potential helpers to trawl through the book trying to find it.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Demystifier
strangerep said:
When asking questions of this kind, you'd get more help more quickly if you state the precise page number(s) and equation number(s), instead of expecting potential helpers to trawl through the book trying to find it.
it's on page 51, Peskin & Schroeder's book.
 
Hey good question. This comes down to a few basic observations about sigma matrices.
First of all, we note
$$
(i\sigma ^2)_{\alpha\beta} = \epsilon_{\alpha\beta}.
$$
Next we rephrase the statement of the problem in a slightly more illuminating form:
$$
(i\sigma^2 \sigma^{\mu})_{\alpha\beta}= ((\bar{\sigma^{\mu}})^T)i\sigma^2)_{\alpha\beta}
$$
and of course two matrices are equal if and only if all their entries are equal one by one, so it is easy to see how the indices nomenclature of the statement of the problem follows (note ##\beta## is summed over).
Now, notice from the particular form of the Pauli matrices that they are all symmetric but ##\sigma^2##. This means that only ##\sigma^2## changes sign under transposition.
Moreover, consider the identity
$$
\{\sigma^i, \sigma^j\} = \delta^{ij}
$$.
Thus commuting ##\sigma^2## past all sigmas from the left (or if you wish you can reverse left and right of the identity) - and the identity matrix in the first position - in the four vector ##\sigma^{\mu}##, we obtain the desired identity, since ##\sigma^2## anti-commutes with all components except itself; but the change of sign here is taken care of by the transposition.

I hope this was clear enough.
mdb71.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, atyy and DarMM
@mdb71 the [CODE] BB code tag is for displaying program source code, not for LaTeX. LaTeX only needs to be delimited by $$ for separate equations or ## for inline (these replace the old and delimiters which no longer work).<br /> <br /> I have used magic moderator powers to edit your post accordingly.
 
  • Like
Likes mdb71
Thanks a lot, appreciate. Got it now, I was still getting used to it.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
First, I need to check that I have the 3 notations correct for an inner product in finite vector spaces over a complex field; v* means: given the isomorphism V to V* then: (a) physicists and others: (u,v)=v*u ; linear in the second argument (b) some mathematicians: (u,v)=u*v; linear in the first argument. (c) bra-ket: <v|u>= (u,v) from (a), so v*u . <v|u> is linear in the second argument. If these are correct, then it would seem that <v|u> being linear in the second...