Non-negativity of the eigenvalues of the Dirac operator

  • A
  • Thread starter ShayanJ
  • Start date
  • #1
2,794
597
How can I prove that the eigenvalues of the operator ## i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu ## are non-negative?
I've tried using the ansatz ## \psi=u(p) e^{ip_\nu x^\nu} ## but it didn't help.
I've also tried playing with the equation using the properties of gamma matrices but that doesn't seem to lead anywhere too.
Thanks
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
2,794
597
Why would it not have negative EVs? [I am sorry for asking this but I am trying to see the motivation]
I think its because the Dirac equation is ## i\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu\psi=m \psi ## and so the eigenvalue of that operator is the mass of the Dirac field, so it should be non-negative.

This was given to one of my friends to prove and she asked me for help, so I don't know what was the motivation.
 
  • #3
ChrisVer
Gold Member
3,380
461
So OK:
[itex] i \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu \psi = a \psi[/itex]
[itex] [i \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - a] \psi =0[/itex]
Now the eigenvalues can be found by solving:
[itex] det[i \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - a \textbf{1}] =0[/itex]
?
I have never tried that...
But I think the expression is obtained much more easily by the ansatzes taken while deriving the Dirac equation.
 
  • #4
2,794
597
That's a differential operator so you can't just cancel the Dirac spinor.
 
  • #5
ChrisVer
Gold Member
3,380
461
That's a differential operator so you can't just cancel the Dirac spinor.
try just write it as the momentum...
 
  • #6
2,794
597
try just write it as the momentum...
As I said in the OP, I tried the ansatz ## \psi=u(p) e^{i p_\nu x^\nu} ##, but it doesn't help because you'll get a quadratic equation in m which has both negative and positive solutions.
 
  • #7
ChrisVer
Gold Member
3,380
461
how do you get a quadratic term by differentiating once the exponential?
 
  • #8
ChrisVer
Gold Member
3,380
461
[itex] i \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu u(p) e^{i p x} = a u(p)e^{ipx}[/itex]
[itex] - \gamma^\mu p_\mu u(p) e^{ipx} = a u(p) e^{ipx}[/itex]
[itex] (a + \slash{p} ) u(p) e^{ipx} = 0[/itex]
so just try the determinant of the matrix on the left?
 
  • #9
2,794
597
so just try the determinant of the matrix on the left?
And that's exactly what gives you the quadratic equation! (Actually its fourth order, but you can solve it to get a quadratic equation.)
 
  • #10
ChrisVer
Gold Member
3,380
461
In fact the more I think of it, the more I tend to say that by construction there is no reason to have positive EVs...
It's again coming from the fact that negative masses wouldn't make much sense and would violate causality...
And then, the rest comes from the way we derive the Dirac equation, by using the [itex]E^2= p^2+m^2[/itex] where [itex]m^2>0[/itex].
 
  • #11
1,310
354
I guess I would expect the operator, ##i\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu## to have a sign symmetric spectrum. Is there a reason to think otherwise? Take the special case ##v_ne^{-i\omega t}## where ##v_n## is an eigen vector of ##\gamma_t##. Both signs occur.
 

Related Threads on Non-negativity of the eigenvalues of the Dirac operator

Replies
0
Views
626
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
972
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
824
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
976
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
997
Top