The Gamma Matrix Trace Paradox: A Conundrum in Spinor Calculations

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the evaluation of a trace involving gamma matrices in the context of spinor calculations, specifically addressing a perceived paradox that arises during the computation. Participants explore different methods and identities related to gamma matrices, their traces, and the implications of cyclic permutations in the calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a calculation involving the trace of gamma matrices and identifies a paradox in their results.
  • Another participant suggests that the paradox was due to not applying cyclic permutations correctly in the trace evaluation.
  • A different approach is proposed, where a participant recommends substituting the momentum vector into the gamma matrix expression and separating the sums to simplify the calculation.
  • One participant expresses confusion over the teaching methods used for these calculations, questioning why a more straightforward approach based on Clifford algebra is not emphasized.
  • Another participant defends the traditional teaching method, arguing that it is more general and applicable to other spin cases beyond spin 1/2.
  • A mention of an alternative method using density matrix principles instead of spinors is introduced, indicating a preference for that approach by one participant.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the best methods for evaluating traces of gamma matrices, with some advocating for traditional approaches and others suggesting simpler alternatives. There is no consensus on the superiority of one method over the other, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the best pedagogical approach.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of anticommutation relations and cyclic invariance in trace calculations, but there is uncertainty about the implications of these principles in different contexts. The discussion also reflects varying levels of familiarity with the underlying algebraic structures.

malawi_glenn
Science Advisor
Messages
6,735
Reaction score
2,436
gamma matrix trace Paradox??

Hello, i tried to evaluate this particular little guy:

\text{Tr} (\gamma ^0 p_\mu \gamma ^\mu \gamma ^0 q_\nu \gamma ^\nu )

using these identities:

\gamma^0 \gamma^0 = I

\text{Tr} (\gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu \gamma^\rho \gamma^\sigma) = 4 (g^{\rho \sigma} g^{\mu \nu} - g^{\nu \sigma} g^{\mu \rho} + g^{\mu \sigma}g^{\nu \rho} )

\text{Tr} (\gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu) = 4\eta^{\mu\nu}

g^{00} = 1, \quad g^{ii} = -1using that second relation, I get:

p_\mu q_\nu \text{Tr} (\gamma ^0 \gamma ^\mu \gamma ^0 \gamma ^\nu ) = p_\mu q_\nu 4 (g^{0\mu} g^{0 \nu} - g^{0 0} g^{\mu \nu } + g^{\mu 0}g^{\nu 0} ) =

p_\mu q_\nu (8\delta ^{0\mu}\delta ^{0\nu} - 4g^{\mu \nu } ) = 4p^0q^0 + 4\vec{q}\cdot \vec{p}

Using the first and third, and the fact the traces are invariant under cyclic permutations of matrices.

p_\mu q_\nu\text{Tr} (\gamma^0 \gamma ^0 \gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu ) = p_\mu q_\nu 4g^{\mu \nu } = 4p^0q^0 - 4\vec{q}\cdot \vec{p}

What happened?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


I found the solution to the paradox, I did not do a CYCLIC permutation ;-)
 


I think it is much easier to substitute p_\mu\gamma^\mu = p_0\gamma^0 + p_j\gamma^j. Then separate into two sums. You get two sums. One has (\gamma^0)^3 which you can reduce easily. The other has a product \gamma^0\gamma^j\gamma^0. To reduce this, note that \gamma^0 and \gamma^j anticommute. Now do the same thing with the other gamma product.

I never could figure out why students are taught the hard way to do these problems. One should always rely on the facts of the Clifford algebra, that is, anticommutation, and squaring to +1 or -1 for the gammas.
 


I don't know, we are taught to use anticommutation relations with the metric and using cyclic invariant of trace.

I see the strength in your advice although. Thank you
 


I think the reason they teach it to you that way is because it is more general. That is, they are teaching you things according to the principles of symmetry and this will work for other spin cases than spin 1/2. The trick I showed you only works for spin 1/2.

By the way, there is a whole nother method that uses density matrix principles instead of spinors and I like those methods too.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K