Program for Traces of Dirac matrices

PJK
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I want to calculate traces of Dirac matrices with a program like Mathematica.
I found the package FeynCalc but it seems to be outdated.
It is always producing results like this:
Code:
4 (-(DiracCanonical->False) (Factoring->False) (FeynCalcInternal->True) g^(mu nu) 

(InsideDiracTrace->True) k\[CenterDot]l-l^2 (DiracCanonical->False) (Factoring->False) 

(FeynCalcInternal->True) g^(mu nu) (InsideDiracTrace->True)+m^2 

(DiracCanonical->False) (Factoring->False) (FeynCalcInternal->True) g^(mu nu) 

(InsideDiracTrace->True)+k^nu l^mu (DiracCanonical->False) (Factoring->False) 

(FeynCalcInternal->True) (InsideDiracTrace->True)+k^mu l^nu (DiracCanonical->False) 

(Factoring->False) (FeynCalcInternal->True) (InsideDiracTrace->True)+2 l^mu l^nu 

(DiracCanonical->False) (Factoring->False) (FeynCalcInternal->True) 

(InsideDiracTrace->True))
Which is quite annoying. Even worse I want to use the metric (-1,1,1,1) and there seems to be no support for changing the metric.
Is there a better program/package for doing those calculations?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Apparently this was a difficult question. But maybe one year later someone has got an idea?
I have the same problem as the one described above.
 
I am not too(edit: At all) familiar with the Dirac matrices but following the discussion on

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DiracMatrices.html

What is wrong with using $Tr(A\otimes B) = Tr(A)Tr(B)$?
 
comote said:
I am not too(edit: At all) familiar with the Dirac matrices but following the discussion on

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DiracMatrices.html

What is wrong with using $Tr(A\otimes B) = Tr(A)Tr(B)$?

Thanks for your input. Of course it would be possible to implement all the Dirac algebra using the functions of Mathematica. That's what the people of FeynCalc did. But since it has already been done, I would rather use it, instead of redoing it myself. And FeynCalc DOES work; its output is just unreadable (as can be seen in the example above).
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top