Trying to Derive Dirac's equation following Dirac

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter GravitatisVis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derive Dirac
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of Dirac's equation, specifically focusing on the original method used by Dirac. Participants explore the mathematical steps involved in factoring the energy-momentum relation from special relativity and the implications of this factorization on the properties of the matrices involved.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the challenge of deriving Dirac's equation by starting with the energy-momentum relation and attempting to factor it to obtain a linear expression for energy.
  • Another participant suggests that only one set of matrices is needed by equating \(\gamma\) and \(\beta\) and symmetrizing the first term, implying a simplification in the derivation process.
  • A different participant counters that it is premature to symmetrize the first term without knowing the anti-commutation relations of the gamma matrices, emphasizing the need to establish these relations first.
  • Further clarification is sought regarding the necessity of two sets of matrices and the implications of symmetrization on the derivation.
  • One participant elaborates on the factorization process and the conditions under which it is valid, noting that the symmetry of the left-hand side must be matched on the right-hand side to derive the anti-commutation relations naturally.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the approach to factorization and the use of matrices, indicating that multiple competing views remain regarding the derivation process and the properties of the matrices involved.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions about the relationship between the four-vector notation and the factors used in the derivation, as well as the implications of the anti-commutation relations that have not yet been established in the discussion.

GravitatisVis
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,

I'm trying to follow how Dirac went about deriving his wave equation. I know there's a couple of different ways to "derive" this, but I'm trying to follow the original method that Dirac used. There's a lot of good stuff online for this, but there's a step that I get stuck at and was hoping you could help.

Just as Schrödinger stars with the classical Hamiltonian and make's the quantum substitution, Dirac does the same thing, only starting with the energy-momentum relation from special relativity. The problem is that this is quadratic, so he assumes you can factor it in order to get a linear expression for the energy.

[itex]p^{\mu} p_{\mu} = m^2[/itex] , so

[itex]p^{\mu} p_{\mu} - m^2 = 0[/itex],

Assuming that you can factor this, you get

[itex]p^{\mu} p_{\mu} - m^2 = (\beta^{\kappa} p_{\kappa} - m)(\gamma^{\lambda} p_{\lambda}+m)[/itex]

Now we need to determine [itex]\beta^{\kappa}[/itex] and [itex]\gamma^{\lambda}[/itex]

We can expand the righthand side so that

[itex]\beta^{\kappa} \gamma^{\lambda} p_{\kappa}p_{\lambda} + (\beta^{\kappa}p_{\kappa} - \gamma^{\lambda}p_{\lambda}) - m^2[/itex]

and you pick up this cross term in the middle.

So now you can identify the [itex]m^2[/itex] on the RHS with the one on the LHS, and also identify the [itex]\beta^{\kappa} \gamma^{\lambda} p_{\kappa}p_{\lambda}[/itex] on the RHS with the [itex]p^{\mu} p_{\mu}[/itex] on the LHS. This seems to suggest that the cross terms in the middle should be zero.

The problem is that I'm just now sure how to get rid of them. Also I'm a little confused about the relationship between the [itex]p^{\mu}[/itex] four vectors and the [itex]p_k[/itex] factors. Is [itex]p_k[/itex] still a four vector? If not what is it?

Thanks for the help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
you do not need to have two set of matrices. Just take [itex]\gamma = \beta[/itex]. then symmetrize the first term
[tex]\gamma^{ \mu } \gamma^{ \nu } P_{ \mu } P_{ \nu } = \frac{ 1 }{ 2 } \{ \gamma^{ \mu } , \gamma^{ \nu } \} P_{ \mu } P_{ \nu }[/tex]

Sam
 
samalkhaiat said:
you do not need to have two set of matrices. Just take [itex]\gamma = \beta[/itex]. then symmetrize the first term
[tex]\gamma^{ \mu } \gamma^{ \nu } P_{ \mu } P_{ \nu } = \frac{ 1 }{ 2 } \{ \gamma^{ \mu } , \gamma^{ \nu } \} P_{ \mu } P_{ \nu }[/tex]

Sam

Hi Sam,
Thanks for the input.

I don't think it's fair game though at this point to symmetrize the first term, since you don't know the anti-commutation relation between the gamma matrices yet. That comes next when you expand everything out, compare terms on the RHS with the LHS, and realize that you need some kind of object with specific properties that happens to have the appropriate anti-commutation relation.

Also, I'm a little confused as to why you said "you do not need to have two set of matrices". Can you explain?

Thanks a lot!
 
you can see here just above eqn 3 what sam means
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath654/kmath654.htm
However Sam's way is ingenious and you can get the usual way in above reference.Also by symmetrizing you get the anticommutation which is no artificial.
 
GravitatisVis said:
Hi Sam,
Thanks for the input.

I don't think it's fair game though at this point to symmetrize the first term, since you don't know the anti-commutation relation between the gamma matrices yet. That comes next when you expand everything out, compare terms on the RHS with the LHS, and realize that you need some kind of object with specific properties that happens to have the appropriate anti-commutation relation.

Also, I'm a little confused as to why you said "you do not need to have two set of matrices". Can you explain?

Thanks a lot!


Ok, do it your way. You want to factorize the expression
[tex]\eta^{ \mu \nu }p_{ \mu }p_{ \nu } - m^{ 2 }[/tex]
as
[tex]( \gamma^{ \mu } p_{ \mu } - m ) ( \beta^{ \nu } p_{ \nu } + m )[/tex]
and find the conditions under which such factorization is valid. So, you expand
[tex] \gamma^{ \mu } \beta^{ \nu } p_{ \mu } p_{ \nu } + ( \gamma^{ \mu } - \beta^{ \mu } ) p_{ \mu } m - m^{ 2 }[/tex]
Now, you compare with original expression. Since there was no term linear in [itex]m p_{ \mu }[/itex], you must have [itex]\gamma^{ \mu } = \beta^{ \mu }[/itex]. So you are left with
[tex]\eta^{ \mu \nu } p_{ \mu } p_{ \nu } = \gamma^{ \mu } \gamma^{ \nu } p_{ \mu } p_{ \nu }[/tex]
In order to equate the coefficients on both sides that is valid for all values of the indices, you must make the right-hand side symmetric in [itex]\mu[/itex] and [itex]\nu[/itex] (because the left-hand side IS symmetric). This way the anti-commutator shows up naturally as a condition on your chosen matrices:
[tex] \{ \gamma^{ \mu } , \gamma^{ \nu } \} = 2 \eta^{ \mu \nu }[/tex]

Sam
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K