I Understanding the Equations of Motion for the Dirac Lagrangian

JohnH
Messages
63
Reaction score
6
TL;DR Summary
Looking for a proof of
∂(∂L/∂[overline]Ψ[\overline])=0
and
∂L/∂Ψ=-[overline]Ψ[\overline]m
and
∂L/∂(∂[SUB]μ[/SUB]Ψ)=i[overline]Ψ[\overline]γ[SUP]μ[/SUP]
I'm having trouble following a proof of what happens when the Dirac Lagrangian is put into the Euler-Lagrange equation. This is the youtube video: and you can skip to 2:56 and pause to see all the math laid out. I understand the bird's eye results of the Dirac Lagrangian having an equation of motion that is either the Dirac equation or a [overline]Ψ[\overline] version of the Dirac equation, but I'm unclear about why, when putting the Dirac Lagrangian into the Euler-Lagrange equation, the following pieces are:

∂(∂L/∂[overline]Ψ[\overline])=0
and
∂L/∂Ψ=-[overline]Ψ[\overline]m
and
∂L/∂(∂μΨ)=i[overline]Ψ[\overline]γμ

Thanks for all replies.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You get it by direct computation. The equations of motion for a field ##\psi## described by some Lagrangian ##\mathcal{L}## are the Euler-Lagrange equations $$\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial\psi} - \frac{\partial}{\partial x^\mu}\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial(\partial_\mu\psi)}=0 \rm{.}$$ In units of ##\hbar=c=1##, the Dirac Lagrangian can be written as $$\mathcal{L} = \bar{\psi}\left(\mathrm{i}\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu - m\right)\psi = \bar{\psi}\mathrm{i}\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu\psi - m\bar{\psi}\psi \rm{.}$$ Now, you can plug this Lagrangian into the equations of motion above in which you differentiate with respect to ##\psi## - in this way you will obtain the equations of motion for the field ##\bar{\psi}##. Alternatively, you can differentiate with respect to ##\bar{\psi}## in the Euler-Lagrange equations, thereby obtaining the standard Dirac equation (i.e., the equations of motion for the field ##\psi##).

Observe that in the Lagrangian there is no term of the form ##\partial_\mu\bar{\psi}##, hence you get $$\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial(\partial_\mu\bar{\psi})}=0 \rm{,}$$ which shows you that ##\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial\bar{\psi}}=0## - this is one of the things you asked about. You can work out the rest of the identities from your Question yourself in the same manner.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
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...
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...

Similar threads

Back
Top