2
$\begingroup$

Why do we say that in non-relativistic limit we need only two component spinor? (As in Schrödinger equation, we do not even talk of spinors,... they are one component object) I have read this statement in several books discussing non relativistic limit of Dirac equation.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

The term "Schrodinger equation" is ambiguous, and can sometimes refer to the abstract equation $H|\psi> = E|\psi>$ and sometimes refer to more specific things such as the spacial portion of the non-relativistic wave-function. The non-relativistic wave-function of a particle with spin does involve spinors, so the general Schrodinger equation applied to it has both a spacial part and a spin part.

It's true that the spinors you need to describe a non-relativistic particle are only 2-component rather than 4-component, as long as the particle's kinetic energy is much less than its rest energy ($\frac{p^2}{2m} << mc^2$)

The easiest way I can think of to explain the difference is in terms of anti-particles. Non-relativistic quantum mechanics only describes particles, there is no such thing as anti-particles. So it makes sense that you only need half the number of degrees of freedom. The same 4-component Dirac spinor in quantum field theory is used to represent both the electron and the positron. Another way to say this is that there are both positive-energy and negative-energy solutions to the Dirac equation. But in non-relativistic quantum mechanics, there is no reason to consider antiparticles or negative-energy solutions. We only care about describing electrons (or other similar particles). If you take the non-relativistic limit of a 4-component Dirac spinor, you just end up with 2 of the components always being the same, and the other 2 components always being the same. So you may as well just discard the duplicated parts and only use 2-components.

In terms of group theory, the spacetime group for relativistic quantum mechanics is the Lorentz group SO(3,1). When you look at all representations of that, you find a trivial scalar representation, some spinor representations, some vector representations, etc. The spinor representations are better thought of as SU(2)xSU(2), which is locally isomorphic to SO(3,1). Since there are 2 copies of SU(2), you have two 2-component Weyl spinors (which can be stacked on top of each other to build a 4-component Dirac spinor). But in non-relativistic quantum mechanics, time is not a dimension, it's just a separate parameter. The group of rotations in 3D space is just SO(3). So you only need one copy of SU(2) to find a spinor representation that's locally isomorphic to that. Adding a second copy would just be redundant. This means you only need a single 2-component spinor.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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