So what's the deal with Majorana, Weyl, and Dirac particles in N dimensions?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter arivero
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dirac Majorana Weyl
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties and representations of Majorana, Weyl, and Dirac particles in N dimensions, including their Lagrangians, masses, and the conditions under which Grassman variables are required. Participants explore theoretical aspects, mathematical formulations, and the implications of different fermionic representations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes the lack of previous discussions on Majorana, Weyl, and Dirac particles in N dimensions and invites questions on various related topics.
  • Another participant questions when Grassman variables become necessary, suggesting they are not needed for the Dirac or Majorana equations but are invoked in the context of Majorana Lagrangians.
  • A participant raises concerns about the limits of Dirac fermions, particularly regarding mass and energy eigenstates, and inquires whether Majorana particles possess negative energy eigenstates.
  • One participant shares a mathematical relation involving the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor derived from Dirac fields and discusses the implications of Lorentz transformations on these fields.
  • Another participant reflects on the electromagnetic field and its properties in relation to earlier comments, referencing a footnote from a quantum mechanics text.
  • A participant elaborates on the representations of the Lorentz group and how Weyl and Majorana fermions relate to these representations, emphasizing the coupling requirements for Dirac fermions.
  • Some participants express confusion regarding the use of SO(3) and SO(2,1) versus SU(2) x SU(2) in the context of chiral fields and discuss the implications of using real versus complex algebras.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of Grassman variables, the properties of Majorana particles, and the appropriate mathematical frameworks (SO versus SU) for discussing fermionic representations. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the need for Grassman variables and the implications of mass and energy eigenstates for Majorana particles. The discussion also highlights the complexity of the representations of the Lorentz group and their implications for different types of fermions.

arivero
Gold Member
Messages
3,485
Reaction score
188
Amusingly, a search on these three words here in PF does not show a lot of postings, so I am creating this thread so you can ask all your doubts about N-dimensional Majorana, Weyl and Dirac particles, their representations, their Lagragians, masses, and whatever you have always wanted to know :-p

We have spoken previously of it early this year here
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=378170&highlight=majorana+Weyl+Dirac
A couple years ago here, relating to SUSY!
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=242313&highlight=Majorana+Weyl+Dirac
and five years ago here
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=89846&highlight=Majorana+Weyl+Dirac
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
A first question I am interested on, is when do we start to need Grassman Variables. It seems that we don't need it to write explicitly the Dirac equation, nor the Majorana ones. But reading Peskin, it invokes them already when using a Lagrangian for Majorana.
 
Other issue to address: In Dirac fermions, we are usually told about the limits when c goes to infinity (so classical quantum mechanics with spin 1/2 particles), when mass goes to zero (so it dividis in Weyl spinors) and even when mass is, if not infinite, a lot greater than the energy eigenvalue, and then we see the distinction between two "particle" degrees of freedom and two "antiparticle" states.

What about all of these in Majorana particles. In fact, do Majorana particles have negative energy eigenstates?
 
Maybe nice to post some of the relations I found, for example this
one yielding the symmetric electromagnetic stress energy tensor:

If we apply the generator of general Lorentz transformations to
a Dirac field, using the definitions:

[tex]\varphi' ~=~ {\cal F}^\mu_{~\nu}\,\varphi ~=~ \left(\,\vec{E}\cdot\hat{\mathbb{K}} + \vec{B}\cdot\hat{\mathbb{J}}\,\right)\varphi[/tex]


Where J is the rotation generator, K is the boost generator, E and
B are the electromagnetic field and F is the spinor version of the
electromagnetic field tensor.

The (five) Dirac bilinear fields all yield the stress energy tensor T:

[tex] \begin{aligned}<br /> &\bar{\varphi}'\gamma^\mu\varphi' &=~~~ &\tfrac12\,T^\mu_{~\nu}~\bar{\varphi}\,\gamma^\nu\varphi \\<br /> &\bar{\varphi}'\gamma^5\gamma^\mu\varphi' &=~~~ &\tfrac12\,T^\mu_{~\nu}~\bar{\varphi}\,\gamma^5\gamma^\nu\varphi \\<br /> &\bar{\varphi}'~\mathbb{K}^\mu\,\varphi' &=~~~ &\tfrac12\,T^\mu_{~\nu}~\bar{\varphi}\,\mathbb{K}^\nu\,\varphi \\<br /> &\bar{\varphi}'~\mathbb{J}^\mu\,\varphi' &=~~~ &\tfrac12\,T^\mu_{~\nu}~\bar{\varphi}\,\mathbb{J}^\nu\,\varphi \\<br /> \end{aligned}[/tex]

The first two are the vector and axial vector representing the
four-current and four-spin of the transformed field. The third
and fourth are mixed quantities which contain the remaining fields.
We extend K and J to 4 components for convenience as follows:

[tex] \mathbb{K}^\mu ~=~ -\tfrac12\,\gamma^\mu\gamma^o, ~~~~~~~~~~ \mathbb{J}^\mu ~=~ \tfrac{i}{2}\,\gamma^5\gamma^\mu\gamma^o[/tex]


The zero'th component of K yields the scalar and the zero'th
component of J yields the pseudo scalar. the spatial components
of J produce the half of the tensor which represents the magneti-
zation
of the Dirac field while those of K yield the other half of the
tensor which represents the polarization of the field (zero at rest).


Regards, Hans
 
Hello Hans,

I was not thinking -yet- on the Electromagnetic field, nor its duality properties etc. But your comment remembered me of a footnote in Sakurai's "Advanced Quantum Mechanics"
 

Attachments

  • sakurai.png
    sakurai.png
    46.7 KB · Views: 830
arivero said:
Other issue to address: In Dirac fermions, we are usually told about the limits when c goes to infinity (so classical quantum mechanics with spin 1/2 particles), when mass goes to zero (so it dividis in Weyl spinors) and even when mass is, if not infinite, a lot greater than the energy eigenvalue, and then we see the distinction between two "particle" degrees of freedom and two "antiparticle" states...

All three types of fermions transform as definite representations of the Lorentz group SO(3,1). Both Weyl and Majorana fermions take advantage of a very peculiar and strange property of the Lorentz group. This is because the Complex extension of the Lie algebra associated with SO(3,1) is not simple. It decomposes into a direct sum of the algebras of of SO(3) and SO(2,1). But if you keep everything real and don't do the complex extension, the algebra of SO(3.1) is simple (and the real SO(3.1) is a simple group.) This creates the following unusual situation. The representations of SO(3,1) can be labelled by two indices (corresponding to the Complex direct sum.) The smallest representation of SO(3) and SO(2,1) are both two dimensional. It turns out that both Weyl and Majorana Fermions transform by the (chiral) representation (1/2, 0) (say for left handed fermions.) This is a representation of the Lorentz group, but it is not a faithful representation. The same thing can be said for the other chiral representation (0, 1/2). But then the amazing (to me) fact takes over: the direct sum of two unfaithful representation is a faithful one namely : (1/2, 0) + (0, 1/2). That's what the Dirac Fermions transform as. Of course you need terms in the Lagrangian that couple (1/2, 0) and (0, 1/2) to each other. These require either scalar (or pseudo scalar) or second order antisymmetric tensor couplings for Dirac and Weyl fermions (the vector and axial vector couplings allowed by Lorentz group never mix the two.) The mass term in Dirac equation is the scalar term that does that. This is why we can view (in some sense) that in the limit of of zero mass, Dirac fermions reduce to a pair of Weyl (or Majorana) fermions. Because the Lagrangian does not couple the two components of the representation to each other. (Assuming no tensor couplings which seem not to be present. If there were tensor couplings, it would be a different story.) For Majorana fermions, the (real restricted) representation (1/2, 0) can couple to itself to form a scalar, and thus provide a mass term (which however violates Fermion number.)

As a side note, I will mention the point that the defining (real) four dimensional representation of the Lorentz group is (1/2, 1/2) and it is irreducible. It can couple (as vector or axial vector) to Weyl fermions, or to either (or both) component of the Dirac Fermions (but not to Majorana.)
 
SO(3) and SO(2,1)?! I thought we usually dealt with SU(2) x SU(2)? And depending on which of the SU(2) the field transforms non-trivially under, we get either a left handed or right handed chiral field.
 
TriTertButoxy said:
SO(3) and SO(2,1)?! I thought we usually dealt with SU(2) x SU(2)? And depending on which of the SU(2) the field transforms non-trivially under, we get either a left handed or right handed chiral field.

The SO(3) algebra is isomorphic to the SU(2) algebra. (But the groups are not isomorphic differing by a factor of Z2.) Non-compact SO(2,1) and SU(1,1) algebras are also the same, if you use the complex extensions. So, once you allow the complex algebras, everything is the same. I prefer SO(3) and SO(2,1) because you can keep everything real for whatever it is worth. Likewise working with SU(2) is just fine.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
10K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
18K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K