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.

In chapter III.6 of his Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell, A. Zee sets out to derive the magnetic moment of an electron in quantum electrodynamics. He starts by replacing in the Dirac equation the derivative $\partial_\mu$ by the covariant derivative $D_\mu = \partial_\mu - i e A_\mu$, where $A_\mu$ is a (classical) external electromagnetic field. We have $$ (i \gamma^\mu D_\mu - m) \psi ~=~ 0. $$ From that he derives $$ \left(D_\mu D^\mu - \frac{e}{2} \sigma^{\mu \nu} F_{\mu\nu} + m^2\right) \psi~=~ 0, $$ where, as usual, $F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu$ and $\sigma^{\mu \nu}$ are the commutators of the Dirac $\gamma$ matrices: $$ \sigma^{\mu \nu}=\frac{i}{2}[\gamma^\mu, \gamma^\nu]. $$

My problem deals with a apparently simple step that Zee uses in the derivation. He claims that $$ (i/2) \sigma^{\mu \nu}[D_\mu, D_\nu] = (e/2) \sigma^{\mu \nu} F_{\mu\nu}. $$ However, I get $$ [D_\mu, D_\nu] = -ie\partial_\mu A_\nu + ie\partial_\nu A_\mu -ieA_\mu\partial_\nu + ie A_\nu \partial_\mu = -ieF_{\mu\nu} -ie A_\mu\partial_\nu + ie A_\nu \partial_\mu, $$ but I do not see right now why the last two terms vanish when multiplied by $\sigma^{\mu \nu}$. I even tried to use the explicit expressions for $\sigma^{\mu \nu}$ and got a nonzero value. I have the feeling that I am missing something really simple here. Does somebody see what I did wrong?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

When you do the commutator you have to remember that it acts on something. That means you'll have (don't care for the convention of i and e):

$[D_\mu,D_\nu]\phi=(-[\partial_\mu,A_\nu]-[A_\mu,\partial_\nu])\phi$

Now you have to take into account the chain rule for differentiation! The first commutator evaluates to:

$-(\partial_\mu A_\nu)\phi-A_\nu(\partial_\mu \phi)+A_\nu(\partial_\mu \phi)=-(\partial_\mu A_\nu)\phi$

Doing that for the second commutator as well gives the wanted result.

Cheers, A friendly helper

Edit: Thanks for the Latex fix :)

share|improve this answer
1  
Right. I guess I was blinded by the appearance of $\partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu$ so I forgot that the $\partial$s were still operating on everything to their right. Thanks. –  Alejandro Luque Nov 22 '12 at 22:36

You've forgotten that the expression $[D_{\mu},D_{\nu}]$ is an operator, so the derivatives act on everything to their right. It is easiest to work things out if you actually operate your expression on an arbitrary test function $f(x)$. So in your last equation, for example, the first term on the right-hand side of the first equality sign becomes $$ -i e \partial_{\mu}A_{\nu} \to -i e \partial_{\mu}(A_{\nu}f(x)) = -i e (\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu})f(x) -i e A_{\nu}(\partial_{\mu} f(x)). $$ Carry out this procedure in full and the unwanted terms should cancel.

share|improve this answer
    
This is basically identical to the answer by A friendly helper and both are correct. I am accepting his answer because he was slightly quicker but many thanks anyway. –  Alejandro Luque Nov 22 '12 at 22:38
    
yup, a friendly helper posted while i was still in the middle of writing this, so he/she deserves it :) –  Mark Mitchison Nov 23 '12 at 0:50

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.