I The Dirac Equation: Understanding Spinors and Approximations

park
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
dirac equation and it's solution
I'm studying about dirac equation and it's solution.
When we starts with the equation (2.75), I can understand that it is possible to set 2 kinds of spinor.
스크린샷 2020-03-31 오후 2.51.18.png

스크린샷 2020-03-31 오후 2.51.39.png

But my question is...
1. After the assumption (2.100), how can we set the equation like (2.101)
스크린샷 2020-03-31 오후 2.52.18.png

2. I can't get (2.113) from (2.111) using (2.112)... Approximation and operator made me so crazy!
Please help me...
스크린샷 2020-03-31 오후 2.52.50.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First step: what is ##(\vec{p} \cdot \sigma) (\vec{p} \cdot \vec{\sigma}) ## equal to?
 
nrqed said:
First step: what is ##(\vec{p} \cdot \sigma) (\vec{p} \cdot \vec{\sigma}) ## equal to?

Equal to ##\boldsymbol{p}^2## !
 
park said:
Equal to ##\boldsymbol{p}^2## !
Right!

Now, the key point is that they work up to order ##p^4##, i.e. they drop all terms of higher order.

So notice that the following term on the left of (2.111) is

$$ (T+e \phi) (-p^2/(8m^2c^2)= -p^4/(16m^3c^2) ~\text{plus terms of order } p^4 \text{ and higher}.$$

This term cancels exactly the term ##- (\vec{p} \cdot \vec{\sigma})^2\, p^2/(16m^3c^2) ## that appears on the right side. This leaves Eq, (2.113), which is valid up to order ##p^4##.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...

Similar threads

Back
Top