Proof of traceless gamma matrices

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving that gamma matrices are traceless, referencing a proof found on Wikipedia. It begins with the Clifford algebra relation, which leads to the expression involving the trace of gamma matrices. The key argument hinges on the assumption that the indices are distinct, allowing the use of anticommutation properties. This results in an equation that shows the trace of gamma matrices must equal zero. Ultimately, the proof confirms that the trace of gamma matrices is indeed traceless.
center o bass
Messages
545
Reaction score
2
Hi I'm trying to figure out the proof of why the gamma matrices are traceless. I found a proof at wikipedia under 'trace identities' here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_matrices

(it's the 0'th identity)
and from the clifford algebra relation

\{\gamma^\mu, \gamma^\nu\} = 2\eta^{\mu \nu}

one get that

\frac{\gamma^\mu \gamma^\mu}{\eta^{\mu \mu}} = I

thus

Tr(\gamma^\nu) = \frac{1}{\eta^{\mu \mu}} Tr(\gamma^\nu \gamma^\mu \gamma^\mu) = \frac{1}{\eta^{\mu \mu}} Tr(\{\gamma^\nu, \gamma^\mu\} \gamma^\mu - \gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu \gamma^\mu)

and here it seems like they set

\frac{1}{\eta^{\mu \mu}} Tr(\{\gamma^\nu, \gamma^\mu\} \gamma^\mu) = \frac{1}{\eta^{\mu \mu}} Tr(2 \eta^{\nu \mu} \gamma^\mu ) = 0.

But why is this true?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Ah it seems like it was assumed that \mu \neq \nu.
 
If you assume $$\mu\neq \nu$$ then you have $$\gamma^{\nu}\gamma^{\mu}=-\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{\nu}$$ and so you have (using the invariance of the trace under cyclic permutations of the matrices):

$$Tr(\gamma^{\nu})=\frac{1}{\eta^{\mu\mu}}Tr( \gamma^{\nu} \gamma^\mu \gamma^\mu)=\frac{1}{\eta^{\mu\mu}}Tr( \gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu \gamma^\mu)$$

You can now anticommutate and thus obtain:

$$-\frac{1}{\eta^{\mu\mu}}Tr(\gamma^\nu \gamma^\mu \gamma^\mu)=-Tr(\gamma^\nu) \Rightarrow Tr(\gamma^\nu)=-Tr(\gamma^\nu)=0$$
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
340
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
Replies
7
Views
4K