This is the Hilbert space for the Dirac spinor and state vector.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the representation of Dirac spinors within the framework of Hilbert spaces in quantum mechanics, particularly in the context of relativistic quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. Participants explore the implications of positive definite norms, the role of negative energy states, and the construction of state spaces for particles and antiparticles.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that Dirac spinors do not belong to any Hilbert space due to the absence of a positive definite norm, questioning the applicability of quantum mechanics axioms to relativistic scenarios.
  • Another participant presents a mathematical expansion of the Dirac spinor in terms of plane waves, highlighting the normalization issues arising from negative energy states and proposing a reinterpretation of certain operators to achieve a positive definite norm.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes that Dirac spinors are solutions to the Dirac equation, which operates under a pseudo-Riemannian metric, and suggests that these solutions can form a basis for a Hilbert space with a positive definite inner product.
  • One participant challenges the notion that the norm can be positive definite without transitioning to operator formalism, providing a reference for further reading.
  • Another participant expresses a shift in understanding from historical perspectives on relativistic quantum mechanics to field theory, indicating a learning process.
  • A participant critiques an article for excluding negative frequency components in the definition of the inner product, arguing that this exclusion is problematic for maintaining causality and the inclusion of antiparticles.
  • One participant suggests that while their state space is initially for a single particle, it could potentially be extended to include antiparticles and multiparticle states, although they express uncertainty due to their limited knowledge of quantum field theory.
  • Another participant elaborates on constructing Hilbert spaces for single particles and antiparticles, discussing the use of Fock spaces and charge conjugation operators to account for negative energy states and ensure a comprehensive framework.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the representation of Dirac spinors in Hilbert spaces, the implications of negative energy states, and the necessity of including antiparticles. There is no consensus on these issues, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the definitions of norms, the treatment of negative energy states, and the implications of excluding certain components from mathematical formulations. These factors contribute to the complexity of the discussion without reaching definitive conclusions.

kof9595995
Messages
676
Reaction score
2
I believe Dirac spinors are not in any Hilbert space since it has no positive definite norm. However one QM axiom I learned told me any quantum state is represented by a state vector in Hilbert space, so what is happening to Dirac spinor?Or is it just that the axiom is not for relativistic QM?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Considering ψ(x,t) to be a function, we expand it in plane waves,

ψ(x,t) = ∫√(m/E) (upexpi(p·x-ωt) + vpexpi(p·x-ωt)) d3p

The normalization is ∫ψ(x,t)ψ(x,t) d3x = ∫ (upup - vpvp) d3p

and as you point out this is not positive definite, due to the "negative energy states" v.

In the second quantized version u and v become operators which obey anticommutation relations. But even so, if you interpret u and v as annihilation operators the theory has negative energy states and an indefinite norm.

The solution is to reinterpret v as a creation operator: vk = wk. Then vpvp ≡ wpwp = 1 - wpwp and the norm is

ψ(x,t)ψ(x,t) d3x = ∫ (upup + wpwp) d3p - ∫1 d3p

The infinite negative part is discarded, leaving us with a positive definite norm.
 
Dirac spinors are plane wave solutions to the Dirac equation that relies on a background metric (which is actually a Pseudo-Riemannian metric, i.e. not positive definite).
We also know that the plane wave solutions form a basis of a (infinite-dimensional) Hilbert space, which has it's own inner product that is positive definite.
So basically the answer to your question is that there are two 'metrics' at work: the positive definite metric of the Hilbert space and the pseudo-riemannian metric introduced by the Dirac equation.
 
The norm is positive-definite, even without moving to operators. I don't know if this is readable, but try

http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/01_incoming/QFT .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I see, I was reading some history of relativistic QM and I should've switched my mind to field theory, thank you!

EDIT:This is a reply to Bill_k and I'm now reading George's material, and see if it'll make a difference:)
 
Last edited:
George, Unfortunately I disagree with your article. Perhaps I 'm misunderstanding it, but it says,
The inner product on spinor wave function space G = { f | f : R^4 -> D }
is defined to be

/
<f|g> = |f(p)^+ gamma^0 g(p) d mu ,
/

where, as above, the integration measure is given by

d mu delta( p^mu p_mu - m^2) theta(p^0) dp^0 dp^1 dp^2 dp^3 .
What I do not want to see is the theta function. For sure this is Lorentz invariant, and for sure it is positive definite, but you've made it so by excluding the negative frequency components entirely, which is exactly what must not be done.

A theory without antiparticles is acausal. Things look Ok as long as you talk only about the free field, but any interaction will bring in the Green's function, and it will be nonzero outside the light cone. Antiparticles are the cure to this problem and must be included.

If I've misunderstood, I apologize and am ready to be corrected on this.
 
Yes my state space is only for a single particle, but I think it can be extended to (free)antiparticle and multiparticle state spaces by appropriate direct sums and tensor products. I could be wrong, though, as I never really learned quantum field theory. I have a reference that treats this nicely, but it's terse, tough going, so it might take me some time (if at all) to figure this out.
 
Bill_K said:
What I do not want to see is the theta function. For sure this is Lorentz invariant, and for sure it is positive definite, but you've made it so by excluding the negative frequency components entirely, which is exactly what must not be done.

Yes, the Hilbert space constructed in post#4 is the Hilbert space for a single particle. Denote this space by [itex]H_+[/itex]. Construct the multiparticle Fermionic Fock space [itex]F_1[/itex] from this single particle state space. Annihilation and creation operators for particles operate on [itex]F_1[/itex].

Now use an appropriate step function to restrict to the negative energy mass shell, and construct a Hilbert space [itex]H_-[/itex] as the Hilbert space of single antiparticle states. The charge conjugation operator [itex]C[/itex] maps [itex]H_\pm[/itex] to [itex]H_\mp[/itex].

Antiparticles have positive mass, so, for the space multi-antiparticle states, construct another Fermionic Fock space [itex]F_2[/itex] (separate from [itex]F_1[/itex]) from the Hilbert space [itex]H_+[/itex]. Use the the standard annihilation and creation operators together with [itex]C[/itex] to annihilate and create positive mass antiparticle states in [itex]F_2[/itex] that correspond to negative energy states in [itex]H_-[/itex].

Finally, the total Fock space, a genuine Hilbert space, is

[tex]F = F_1 \otimes F{_2} .[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
6K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K