Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The derivation of both Klein-Gordon equation and Dirac equation is due the need of quantum mechanics (or to say more correctly, quantum field theory) to adhere to special relativity. However, excpet that Klein-Gordon has negative probability issue, I do not see difference between these two. What makes Klein-Gordon describe scalar field while Dirac describe spin-1/2 field? Edit: oops. Klein-Gordon does not have non-locality issue. Sorry for writing wrongly.

Edit: Can anyone tell me in detail why $\psi$ field is scalar in Klein-Gordon while $\psi$ in Dirac is spin-1/2? I mean, if solution to Dirac is solution to Klein-Gordon, how does this make sense?

share|improve this question
    
Still it has not answered why probability is conserved. Since the solution to Dirac equation also solves Klein-Gordon equation, the problem of non-conservation of probaility is there with Dirac equation too, correct ? –  user26288 Jun 26 '13 at 2:14
add comment

4 Answers

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Let's review how the KG equation is recovered from the Dirac: (in natural units where $\hbar=c_0=1)$

$$(i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - m)\Psi = 0$$ $$(-i \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - m)(i \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - m) = 0$$ $$(\gamma^\nu \gamma^\mu \partial_\nu \partial_\mu + m^2) \Psi = 0$$ $$(\partial^2+m^2)\Psi = 0.$$

In order for us to recover KG, we had to assume $\gamma^\nu \gamma^\mu = \eta^{\mu\nu}$. In other words, you can think of gamma's as doing the dot product of delta's. To take a lousy example, it's like we had an equation describing a velocity "spinor" and then squared it, so now it describes the speed "scalar" which has one less degree of freedom. This doesn't explain much more than how an equation describing a spinor can reduce into an equation describing a scalar.

The reason why the Dirac equation requires spinors and not scalars is because of special relativity. If it weren't for the pesky minus sign in $\eta^{\mu\nu}$, the algebra of the gamma's would be much simpler and we wouldn't need them to be 4x4 matrices. Then $\Psi$ could describe a scalar field.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Spin is part of what a field IS. The data for two fields of different spins are very different. The KG equation doesn't even make sense for a spin 1/2 field and likewise for the Dirac equation and spin 0 fields.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Spin is a property of the representation of the rotation group $SO(3)$ that describes how a field transforms under a rotation. This can be worked out for each kind of field or field equation.

The Klein-Gordon field gives a spin 0 representation, while the Dirac equation gives two spin 1/2 representations (which merge to a single representation if one also accounts for discrete symmetries).

The components of every free field satistfy the Klein-Gordon equation, irrespective of their spin. In particular, every component of the Dirac equations solves the Klein-Gordon equation. Indeed, the Klein-Gordon equation only expresses the mass shell constraint and nothing else. Spin comes in when one looks at what happens to the components.

A rotation (and more generally a Lorentz transformation) mixes the components of the Dirac field (or any other field not composed of spin 0 fields only), while on a $k$-component spin 0 field, it will transform each component separately.

In general, a Lorentz transformation given as a $4\times 4$ matrix $\Lambda$ changes a $k$-component field $F(x)$ into $F_\Lambda(\Lambda x)$, where $F_\Lambda=D(\Lambda)F$ with a $k\times k$ matrix $D(\Lambda)$ that depends on the representation. The components are spin 0 fields if and only if $D(\Lambda)$ is always the identity.

share|improve this answer
add comment

If we say:

"A field has a spin 0, spin 1/2 or spin 1 representation"

then we in fact say something about how the field parameters transform if we go from one reference frame to another.

spin 0: The values of the field do not change if we go from one reference frame to another

spin 1: We have to apply the Lorentz transform matrix $\Lambda$ on the field parameters.

spin 1/2: We have to apply $\Lambda^{1/2}$ on the field parameters.

Remark: The use of an expression like $\Lambda^{1/2}$ should be interpreted in a somewhat symbolic way because vectors and bispinors are different objects. There is an extra factor 1/2 though in the exponent of the $\Lambda^{1/2}$ matrix.

The spin (associated with rotation) gets in here because the transformation matrix $\Lambda$ handles both boosts as well as rotations. The peculiar factor 1/2 however arises also in the 1 dimensional version of the Dirac equation where there is no such thing as spin (or rotation) and the corresponding 1 space + 1 time dimension version of $\Lambda$ only describes boosts.

The deeper reason for the factor 1/2 is that the Dirac equation relates two field components $\psi_R$ and $\psi_L$ which are equal to each other in the rest frame. In the 1 dimensional case these are the right-moving and left-moving components. The ratio of the two transforms as follows

$(\psi_R:\psi_L)\longrightarrow\Lambda~(\psi_R:\psi_L)$

In the normalization of the plane wave eigen functions this then ends up like

$\psi_R\longrightarrow\Lambda^{+1/2}\psi_R$

$\psi_L\longrightarrow\Lambda^{-1/2}\psi_L$

If we now go back to 3 spatial dimensions then $\Lambda$ includes both boosts and rotations and the factor 1/2 as an exponent on the rotation generation matrices leads two what we call spin 1/2 particles.

Hans.

share|improve this answer
    
The spin 1/2 description is wrong. One has to apply $\Lambda$ and not its square root, but as it is applied to a spinor rather than a vector, the action of $\Lambda$ is different. –  Arnold Neumaier Oct 11 '12 at 10:47
    
Each and every text book uses the expression $\Lambda^{1/2}$ as applied to the spinor components. Spinors are for the same reason also normalized to the square of the mass $\sqrt{m}$ –  Hans de Vries Oct 11 '12 at 11:06
    
You are confusing observables such as the current $\bar{\psi}\gamma^\mu\psi$ which transforms like a vector with the field $\psi$ itself. –  Hans de Vries Oct 11 '12 at 11:10
    
Rather than looking at the specific form of $\Lambda$, Look at the general scaling of a general boost: Vectors: $ \cosh(\vartheta)+\Gamma\sinh(\vartheta)$ versus Spinors: $\cosh(\vartheta/2)+\Gamma\sinh(\vartheta/2)$ –  Hans de Vries Oct 11 '12 at 11:35
    
I was not talking about currents. - ''Each and every text book uses the expression $Λ^{1/2}$''?? Then please show me where it is used in this form in Weinberg's Volume 1. –  Arnold Neumaier Oct 11 '12 at 14:16
show 5 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.