Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Klein-Gordon field is spin-0: really?

  1. Jul 11, 2011 #1
    Usually in the first sentence of the definition of the Klein Gordon equation is the statement that it describes spin-0 particles.

    Similarly, in the first sentence of the definition of the Dirac equation is the statement that it describes spin-1/2 particles.

    But then comes the bit that got me to write this post -- a few sentences later in that latter definition, you're bound to run into the fact that the Dirac equation is the formal square root of the Klein-Gordon equation, and that therefore any solution to the Dirac equation is also solution of the Klein-Gordon equation (though obviously not vice-versa; [itex]x = y \rightarrow x^{2} = y^{2}[/itex], but [itex]x^{2} = y^{2} !\rightarrow x = y[/itex]).

    So...what gives? How can you say that "the Klein-Gordon equation describes spin-0 particles" when every spin-1/2 particle (or at least all of those described by the Dirac equation) is also a solution?

    Looking at the Klein-Gordon equation, it seems like it should be valid for *any* relativistic particle -- [itex]E^{2} = p^{2} + m^{2}[/itex] is generally true, right?

    My gut is telling me that the answer is that while the Klein-Gordon has many non-scalar-particle solutions, it only provides a *complete* description of spin-0 particles...but that seems like a big enough distinction to warrant at least an asterisk in that ever-present first sentence.

    Also, feel free to school me on spin, field quantization, or anything else that I obviously have only a really shallow understanding of.

    Thanks,
    Justin
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 12, 2011 #2

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I think there was a similar topic here on this issue in June, IIRC. Anyways, there's a general theory of <relativistic field equations> first set up in the 1930's (Dirac, Fierz and Pauli). One of its conclusions is that essentially p^2 = m^2 and p^2 = 0, the classical contraints for massive & massless particles, translate into second order partial diff. equations for fields. So essentially in the PDE

    [tex] \left(\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu} + m ^2\right) \mbox{object}(x,t) = 0 [/tex]

    the <object> can be any spin field (0,1/2,1,3/2) for a fundamental particle of mass m.

    Thus, in the statement you mention below there's a mistake by omission. Other fields, too, obey the K-G equation.

    <Usually in the first sentence of the definition of the Klein Gordon equation is the statement that it describes spin-0 particles.>
     
  4. Jul 12, 2011 #3

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    If the "object" in the dextercioby´s equation is a one-component object, THEN this Klein-Gordon equation describes a spin-0 particle. Originally, Klein and Gordon assumed that this object IS a one-component object, which is why it is said that their equation describes a spin-0 particle.
     
  5. Jul 12, 2011 #4
    Both very helpful! I get it. So it's the number of components of the wavefunction.

    Now since you got that one so quickly :devil:, I guess that brings up another question -- is there a first-order equation that describes spin-0 particles? It seems equally weird to me that the formal square root of the K-G equation describes only multi-component fields. I totally get that the way the Dirac equation achieves that square root necessitates that it operate on a multi-component field, but it still seems like there should be some other way.

    And while we're at it, by analogy with putting multi-component wavefunctions into the K-G equation, does the Dirac equation also then describe higher-spin fields, e.g. with a higher-dimensional representation of the Dirac matrices? I realize that there's no lower-dimensional representation that would let you do scalars (since scalars commute), so I guess this is sort of a companion to the prior question.
     
  6. Jul 12, 2011 #5

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I find it difficult to summerize, but the issues raised in your post find an answer in the wonderful book by Fushchych & Nikitin <The symmetries of equations of Quantum Mechanics>, especially Chapter 2, Sections 6 & 8, anyway from page 75 onwards.

    Ammendment to post 2: Even spin 2 can be brought to KG form (but necessarily with mass 0), as the field equations for gravitational waves prove it.
     
  7. Jul 12, 2011 #6
    Awesome, thanks for the recommend. I just got some Amazon credit, so if it's as interesting as it sounds I'll probably be flipping through it soon.

    Correction: Looks like it's out-of-print, and no one is selling for any price on Amazon. sigh.


    The way I read the post (and my gut feeling since it seems to be a simple re-statement of the relativistic kinetic energy relation) I took it to mean that anything would need to satisfy the Klein-Gordon equation, since not doing so would mean violation of relativity (off-shell virtual quanta or whatever obviously excluded -- though the reasons for that are well over my head).
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2011
  8. Jul 13, 2011 #7

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    That is the right understanding, indeed. Poincare invariant field equations obey special relativity principles.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Klein-Gordon field is spin-0: really?
  1. Klein Gordon Field (Replies: 4)

Loading...