I can't figure out if these are matrices or numbers

Matterwave
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
3,971
Reaction score
329
Hi, since Peskin and Schroeder pretty much suppresses the indices in every equation, I am now unable to tell if a lot of these quantities are matrices or numbers. I try to look back, but I still can't seem to figure all of these out. In the Yukawa interaction, for example, the fermion propagator (in momentum space) is a matrix right? While the boson propagator is simply a number?

Also, I see a lot of expressions like \overline{u}u. Are these numbers or outer product matrices? I am really confused on these. If that's a number, then would u\overline{u} be a matrix? u is the dirac spinor.

Is the big M a matrix or number? (In spinor space)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Just a quick answer;

This depends what kind of particles you are trying to describe. For the dirac spinor indeed you are right. Fermions ( spin half guys ) need the SU(2) representation ie the pauli matrices.

The sum over u\bar{u} will give you a 4x4 matrix. Such as \slash p + m with some normalization.

What you should do is figure out what u, v are from looking at the dirac equation. Then you can see their Tensor ranks and figure it out from there.

Hope this helps a bit.
 
So it seems then that \bar{u} u is a number right? It depends on how the book wants to represent these right. If ubar is a row vector and u is a column vector, then row*column is a number whereas column*row is a matrix right? I do know what a Dirac spinor is, but sometimes I have trouble with the notation. For example, the kronecker delta is usually the identity matrix, but I see sometimes that like ostensibly what I would think would be a number is written as a kronecker delta...so I get confused...
 
Yeah.

To convert \bar{u} = conjugate of U ( ie from column to row or whatever ) times the gamma 0 matrix. So one is 'covariant' and one is 'contravariant'.

It it should be a number like you say. Yeah I guess it can be a bit confusing.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top