- #1
Gene Naden
- 321
- 64
I continue to be occupied with the first chapter of Lessons on Particle Physics by Luis Anchordoqui and Francis Halzen. The link is https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0906/0906.1271v2.pdf.
I am on page 24, where they derive equations 1.5.67, which are:
##(\gamma^\mu p_\mu-m)u(p)=0## and
##(\gamma^\mu p_\mu+m)v(p)=0##
Here the plane wave solution is given by equation 1.5.65, which is
##\psi(x)=u(p)e^{-ipx}+v(p)e^{ipx}##
They make the remark "The two negative energy solutions ##u^{(3,4)}## are to be associated with an antiparticle..."
I wondered what the solutions ##u^{(3,4)}## looked like, why there were two of them and what the superscripts (3,4) referred to.
I found a discussion I could understand at https://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node488.html
The (3,4) refer to the third and fourth components of the spinor, which are associated with negative energy by the zero-momentum relation ##(i\gamma^0\partial_t -m)\psi=0##
I think I am beginning to like the Dirac equation (a little bit)
I am on page 24, where they derive equations 1.5.67, which are:
##(\gamma^\mu p_\mu-m)u(p)=0## and
##(\gamma^\mu p_\mu+m)v(p)=0##
Here the plane wave solution is given by equation 1.5.65, which is
##\psi(x)=u(p)e^{-ipx}+v(p)e^{ipx}##
They make the remark "The two negative energy solutions ##u^{(3,4)}## are to be associated with an antiparticle..."
I wondered what the solutions ##u^{(3,4)}## looked like, why there were two of them and what the superscripts (3,4) referred to.
I found a discussion I could understand at https://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node488.html
The (3,4) refer to the third and fourth components of the spinor, which are associated with negative energy by the zero-momentum relation ##(i\gamma^0\partial_t -m)\psi=0##
I think I am beginning to like the Dirac equation (a little bit)
Last edited: