Measuring the spin of a moving Dirac spinor particle

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the measurement of the spin of a moving Dirac spinor particle, particularly in the context of relativistic quantum theory (QT) and quantum field theory (QFT). Participants explore the theoretical framework for measuring spin, the nature of Dirac spinors, and the implications of these concepts in particle physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant outlines a proposed method for measuring the spin of a Dirac 4-spinor that is not at rest, involving the construction of a matrix using gamma matrices and the calculation of probability amplitudes for spin states.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about measuring a Dirac spinor, stating it is a mathematical object and emphasizing its role as a field operator with specific transformation properties.
  • A different participant challenges the notion that Dirac spinors cannot be measured, arguing that they represent the wave function of particles like electrons and that spin can indeed be measured within the framework of relativistic QT.
  • Further, a participant clarifies that while properties of quantum particles can be measured, the interpretation of the unquantized Dirac field as a wave function is problematic, and that QFT provides a more coherent framework for understanding these measurements.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement regarding the measurement of Dirac spinors and the interpretation of their role in relativistic QT versus QFT. Some assert that spin can be measured, while others maintain that the Dirac spinor itself is not directly measurable.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved issues regarding the interpretation of Dirac spinors, the complexities of first-quantization versus second-quantization approaches, and the historical context of Dirac's work. The discussion reflects varying levels of acceptance of these frameworks and their implications for measuring spin.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and the theoretical foundations of particle physics, particularly in relation to spin and relativistic effects.

Alhaurin
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I would like to ask about the process of measuring the Spin of a Dirac 4-spinor Ψ that is not in the rest frame.

Note that even though there is plenty of information about what a Dirac spinor is, what reasoning lead to its discovery and how it can be expressed in terms of particle and antiparticle solutions, there are very few examples of measuring Spin when the spinor particle is moving.

Let v1 be the 3-vector representing the direction in which the spinor particle Ψ is moving and v2 the direction in which Spin is being measured. The process that I think I would have to follow to get the probability amplitude of finding the particle in the +½ state would be:

1- Use a linear combination of gamma matrices γi to build the 4x4 matrix M that measures Spin on the v2 direction. For instance, if v2 is proportional to (x,y,z)=(1,2,5) then M would be proportional to (γ1,2⋅γ2,5⋅γ3).

2- Obtain the eigenvectors of that matrix. Those eigenvectors would represent particles and antiparticles moving in the v2 direction with definite spin (+½ or -½). Actually these solutions would be the so-called helicity eigenstates, their projection of spin onto vector v2 is ±½.

3- Express the spinor Ψ as a linear combination of the eigenvectors in step 2.

4- The probability amplitude of measuring +½ would be |a|2 + |b|2, where a and b represent the complex factor multiplying the +½ particle and antiparticle helicity eigenstate respectevely.

Is what I explained above correct?

Many thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I've no clue how to measure anyting of a Dirac spinor. It's a mathematical object. To be precise, it's a field operator with a well defined transformation behavior under Poincare transformations (including spatial reflections).

Historically Dirac came to his equation by trying to find (a) a wave equation of first order in the time derivative due to the fact that Schrödinger's non-relativistic wave equation was successful in describing non-relativistic particles and (b) find a wave function for particles with spin (the equivalent of the Pauli equation in non-relativistic QM). It's not the best way to understand the logic from this historical procedure. It's only an amazing demonstration of Dirac's ingenious intuition about physics.

Today we can explain relativistic QT starting from symmetry principles in a quite logical way. As it turns out, if you want a representation of the Poincare group for spin-1/2 particles including the possibility for spatial reflections within a local microcausal relativistic field theory one straight-forward way is the quantized Dirac field. The other possibility are Majorana spinors.
 
Thank you for your explanation.

However I do not understand how it is not possible to measure something of a Dirac spinor in relativistic QT. In that theory, the 4 component Dirac spinor represents the wave function of the electron and it should be possible to measure spin (among other things) and calculate corresponding probability amplitudes. All of that independently of the fact that QFT is the ultimate description of particle physics and Dirac's theory just an approximation.
 
You can measure properties of quantum particles, e.g., electrons. You cannot measure spinors, but maybe that's just semantics.

In relativistic QT there's no way to properly interpret the unquantized Dirac field as a "wave function". Only the QFT formulation ("2nd quantization") leads to positive definite probabilities and an energy bounded from below.

You can circumvent these issues within the 1st-quantization formalism in a very complicated way, known as "Dirac's hole formulation", but this has been worked out only for QED, and it's so utterly more complicated than the "modern" formulation as QFT that nobody bothers to try to find a hole-theoretical formulation of the Standard Model.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K