Non-negativity of the eigenvalues of the Dirac operator

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the non-negativity of the eigenvalues of the Dirac operator ## i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu ##. Participants explore various approaches to prove this property, including the use of ansatz and determinant methods, while also questioning the underlying motivations and implications of the eigenvalues being non-negative.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about proving the non-negativity of the eigenvalues and shares their unsuccessful attempts using an ansatz and properties of gamma matrices.
  • Another participant questions the rationale behind the absence of negative eigenvalues, suggesting that the eigenvalue corresponds to the mass of the Dirac field, which should be non-negative.
  • A different participant proposes a method to find eigenvalues by solving the determinant of the operator, but expresses uncertainty about the approach.
  • Some participants note that the operator is a differential operator, which complicates the cancellation of the Dirac spinor in the equations.
  • One participant mentions that their attempts to derive a quadratic equation from the eigenvalue problem yield both positive and negative solutions, raising concerns about the implications of negative eigenvalues.
  • Another participant suggests that the construction of the Dirac equation inherently leads to non-negative eigenvalues, citing causality and the requirement that mass squared is positive.
  • A participant expresses an expectation of a sign-symmetric spectrum for the operator, questioning the reasoning behind the assumption of non-negativity and providing a specific case for consideration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the eigenvalues, with some arguing for non-negativity based on physical interpretations, while others raise questions about the possibility of negative eigenvalues and the implications of such outcomes. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of eigenvalues and the implications of negative values, as well as the dependence on the specific forms of the Dirac equation and the properties of the gamma matrices.

ShayanJ
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
2,802
Reaction score
605
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
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ChrisVer said:
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.
 
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.
 
That's a differential operator so you can't just cancel the Dirac spinor.
 
Shyan said:
That's a differential operator so you can't just cancel the Dirac spinor.
try just write it as the momentum...
 
ChrisVer said:
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.
 
how do you get a quadratic term by differentiating once the exponential?
 
[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?
 
ChrisVer said:
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
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
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ShayanJ

Similar threads

  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K