A Interaction between matter and antimatter in Dirac equation

lagrangman
Messages
13
Reaction score
2
TL;DR Summary
Confusing interaction between matter and antimatter in Dirac equation.
I'm new to relativistic quantum mechanics and quantum field theory and was trying to learn about the Dirac equation.

Unfortunately, I got a little stumped by the interaction between matter and antimatter.

It seems like the time derivative of matter is dependent on the spatial derivative of antimatter, but not the spatial derivative of matter. Likewise, the time derivative of antimatter is dependent on the spatial derivative of matter, but not the spatial derivative of antimatter.

To me this means that if there is momentum of matter, then the antimatter field should be changing, which doesn't make sense to me.

I find this counterintuitive and was hoping that someone could explain this to me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
lagrangman said:
Summary:: Confusing interaction between matter and antimatter in Dirac equation.

It seems like the time derivative of matter is dependent on the spatial derivative of antimatter, but not the spatial derivative of matter.
What makes you think that?
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50 and vanhees71
lagrangman said:
Summary:: Confusing interaction between matter and antimatter in Dirac equation.

I'm new to relativistic quantum mechanics and quantum field theory and was trying to learn about the Dirac equation.

Unfortunately, I got a little stumped by the interaction between matter and antimatter.

It seems like the time derivative of matter is dependent on the spatial derivative of antimatter, but not the spatial derivative of matter. Likewise, the time derivative of antimatter is dependent on the spatial derivative of matter, but not the spatial derivative of antimatter.

To me this means that if there is momentum of matter, then the antimatter field should be changing, which doesn't make sense to me.

I find this counterintuitive and was hoping that someone could explain this to me.
You could read this and tell us precisely what you don't understand. A liitle mathematics might help:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_spinor
 
Isn't the first row of the dirac equation
$$i\frac{\partial \psi_1}{\partial t} = m \psi_1 - i \frac{\partial \psi_4}{\partial x} - i \frac{\partial \psi_4}{\partial y} - i \frac{\partial \psi_3}{\partial z}$$

I was under the impression that ##\psi_1## and ##\psi_2## were matter and ##\psi_3## and ##\psi_4## were antimatter.
 
lagrangman said:
Isn't the first row of the dirac equation
$$i\frac{\partial \psi_1}{\partial \t} = m \psi_1 - i \frac{\partial \psi_4}{\partial x} - i \frac{\partial \psi_4}{\partial y} - i \frac{\partial \psi_3}{\partial z}$$

I was under the impression that ##\psi_1## and ##\psi_2## were matter and ##\psi_3## and ##\psi_4## were antimatter.
Not quite. The Dirac spinors for both particles and antiparticles have four components. In the non-relativistic case, the solutions simplify to approximately two-component solutions, but not in general.
 
Thanks, very helpful.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top