Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Proving lorentz invariance of Dirac bilinears

  1. Oct 18, 2009 #1
    I'm trying to work through the proof of the Lorentz invariance of the Dirac bilinears. As an example, the simplest:

    [tex]\bar{\psi}^\prime\psi^\prime = \psi^{\prime\dagger}\gamma_0\psi^\prime[/tex]
    [tex]= \psi^{\dagger}S^\dagger\gamma_0 S\psi[/tex]
    [tex]= \psi^{\dagger}\gamma_0\gamma_0S^\dagger\gamma_0 S\psi[/tex]
    [tex]= \psi^{\dagger}\gamma_0 S^{-1} S\psi[/tex]
    [tex]= \psi^{\dagger}\gamma_0\psi[/tex]
    [tex]= \bar{\psi}\psi[/tex]

    Where the following have been used: [tex]\gamma_0\gamma_0=\textbf{I}[/tex], [tex]S^{-1} = \gamma_0 S^\dagger\gamma_0[/tex].

    Now, attempting this for the vector current, I get stuck:

    [tex]\bar{\psi}^\prime\gamma^\mu\psi^\prime = \psi^{\prime\dagger}\gamma_0\gamma^\mu\psi^\prime[/tex]
    [tex]=\psi^\dagger S^\dagger\gamma_0\gamma^\mu S\psi[/tex]
    [tex]=\psi^\dagger\gamma_0\gamma_0S^\dagger\gamma_0\gamma^\mu S\phi[/tex]
    [tex]=\psi^\dagger\gamma_0S^{-1}\gamma^\mu S\phi[/tex]

    The problem being I don't know the commutation relation [tex][\gamma^\mu,S][/tex]. Given the expression for [tex]S(a)[/tex]:

    [tex]S(a)=\exp\left( \frac{i}{4\sigma_{\mu\nu}}(a^{\mu\nu} - g^{\mu\nu}) \right)[/tex],

    I could compute the commutator explicitly in the infinitesimal limit ([tex]e^x = 1 + x[/tex]), but this seems a bit annoying... Are there any tricks?

    Cheers!
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2009
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 19, 2009 #2
    Your expression for S(a) is a bit strange. Take a look at Peskin & Schroeder, page 42. (The relevant page is available on books.google.com if you don't have the physical book.) There's a bit of a mismatch in notation - what you call S, P&S call [tex]\Lambda_{\frac{1}{2}}[/tex]. And then you can stick their formula (3.29) into your equation and that immediately gives you the correct answer.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2009
  4. Oct 19, 2009 #3
    I could well have got my notes confused... I have a copy of P&S on my desk, so will have a look when I'm in work (Can't find a preview on Google Books). Cheers!
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Proving lorentz invariance of Dirac bilinears
  1. Dirac bilinears (Replies: 8)

  2. Lorentz invariance (Replies: 3)

Loading...