Understanding the Discrepancy in Four-Vector Differentiation in QFT

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter welcomeblack
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Differentiation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the discrepancy between two methods for evaluating the expression i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu \exp(-i p \cdot x) in Quantum Field Theory (QFT). The correct method utilizes the Minkowski metric g_{\mu\nu} = diag(+,-,-,-) and correctly applies the derivative operator \partial_\mu = (\frac{\partial}{\partial t},\vec{\nabla}). The incorrect method misapplies the signs associated with the gamma matrices and the derivatives, leading to an erroneous result. The key takeaway is the importance of correctly handling the signs when raising or lowering indices in the context of the Minkowski metric.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Quantum Field Theory (QFT)
  • Familiarity with the Minkowski metric g_{\mu\nu}
  • Knowledge of gamma matrices in relativistic quantum mechanics
  • Basic calculus involving partial derivatives
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the Minkowski metric in detail
  • Learn about the role of gamma matrices in QFT
  • Explore the implications of covariant and contravariant indices
  • Review the derivation of the Dirac equation and its applications
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, particularly those specializing in Quantum Field Theory, students studying advanced quantum mechanics, and researchers working on relativistic particle physics will benefit from this discussion.

welcomeblack
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Hi all, I'm working on some QFT and I've run into a stupid problem. I can't figure out why my two methods for evaluating

<br /> i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu \exp(-i p \cdot x)<br />

don't agree. I'm using the Minkowski metric g_{\mu\nu} = diag(+,-,-,-) and I'm using \partial_\mu = (\frac{\partial}{\partial t},\vec{\nabla} )

Method one (correct):

<br /> i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu \exp(-i p \cdot x) = i\gamma^\mu \frac{\partial}{\partial x^\mu} \exp(-i p_\mu x^\mu) \\<br /> i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu \exp(-i p \cdot x) =i\gamma^\mu (-i p_\mu) \exp(-i p_\mu x^\mu) \\<br /> i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu \exp(-i p \cdot x) =\gamma^\mu p_\mu \exp(-i p_\mu x^\mu) \\<br /> i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu \exp(-i p \cdot x) =[\gamma^0 E - \gamma^1 p_x - \gamma^2 p_y - \gamma^3 p_z] \exp(-i p_\mu x^\mu) <br />

Method 2 (incorrect):

<br /> i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu \exp(-i p \cdot x)=i[\gamma^0 \frac{\partial}{\partial t} - \gamma^1 \frac{\partial}{\partial x} - \gamma^2 \frac{\partial}{\partial y} - \gamma^3 \frac{\partial}{\partial z}] \exp(-iEt+ip_x x + i p_y y + i p_z z) \\<br /> i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu \exp(-i p \cdot x)=i[\gamma^0 (-iE) - \gamma^1 (ip_x) - \gamma^2 (ip_y) - \gamma^3 (ip_z)] \exp(-iEt+ip_x x + i p_y y + i p_z z) \\<br /> i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu \exp(-i p \cdot x)=[\gamma^0 E + \gamma^1 p_x + \gamma^2 p_y + \gamma^3 p_z] \exp(-i p_\mu x^\mu) <br />

What's going on? It feels like I'm going crazy.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
welcomeblack said:
Method 2 (incorrect):
i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu \exp(-i p \cdot x)=i[\gamma^0 \frac{\partial}{\partial t} - \gamma^1 \frac{\partial}{\partial x} - \gamma^2 \frac{\partial}{\partial y} - \gamma^3 \frac{\partial}{\partial z}] \exp(-iEt+ip_x x + i p_y y + i p_z z)<br />
Should be
i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu \exp(-i p \cdot x)=i[\gamma^0 \frac{\partial}{\partial t} + \gamma^1 \frac{\partial}{\partial x} + \gamma^2 \frac{\partial}{\partial y} + \gamma^3 \frac{\partial}{\partial z}] \exp(-iEt+ip_x x + i p_y y + i p_z z)<br />

You only need to insert minus signs when raising or lowering indices, or when the Minkowski metric is explicitly present. In this case, γμ is contravariant and ∂/∂xμ is covariant, so everything's fine, and the sum over μ is just a sum.
 
Ohhh okay I get it. Thanks for your help!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K