Proving Feynman Slash Identity: 2a\cdot b

  • Thread starter Thread starter nicksauce
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Feynman Identity
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving the Feynman Slash Identity, specifically the equation \(\not a \not b + \not b \not a = 2a \cdot b\), utilizing the anticommutation relation \(\{\gamma^{\mu}, \gamma^{\nu}\} = 2g^{\mu\nu}\). The solution approach involves rewriting \(2a \cdot b\) as \(2a_{\mu} g^{\mu \nu} b_{\nu}\) and recognizing that the terms \(\not a \not b\) and \(\not b \not a\) arise from the properties of the gamma matrices. The key insight is that the components \(a_{\mu}\) and \(b_{\nu}\) are ordinary numbers, which allows for their commutation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Dirac gamma matrices and their properties
  • Familiarity with the concept of anticommutation relations
  • Knowledge of four-vector notation in relativistic physics
  • Basic grasp of tensor calculus and metric tensors
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Dirac gamma matrices in detail
  • Explore the implications of the anticommutation relation in quantum field theory
  • Learn about the role of four-vectors in relativistic physics
  • Investigate tensor calculus and its applications in theoretical physics
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, graduate students in quantum mechanics, and anyone studying quantum field theory, particularly those interested in the mathematical foundations of particle physics.

nicksauce
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
1,270
Reaction score
7

Homework Statement


I am trying to prove that \displaystyle{\not} a \displaystyle{\not} b + \displaystyle{\not} b \displaystyle{\not} a = 2a\cdot b using the relation \{\gamma^{\mu},\gamma^{\nu}\} = 2g^{\mu\nu}


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


If I work backwards,
<br /> 2a\cdot b = 2a_{\mu} g^{\mu \nu} b_{\nu}<br /> = a_{\mu}(\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{\nu})b_{\nu} + a_{\mu}(\gamma^{\nu}\gamma^{\mu})b_{\nu}

The first term is \displaystyle{\not} a \displaystyle{\not} b but the second term doesn't seem to look like \displaystyle{\not} b \displaystyle{\not} a. Am I missing something here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You're missing the fact that a_\mu and b_\nu are ordinary numbers, and so commute with everything.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
8K