0
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to follow section 15.5 here, which derives the low-energy limit of the Dirac equation for an electron in a EM-field.

After some manipulations (which I think I follow alright) the author arrives at this result for the non-relativistic Hamiltonian:

$$H_\text{non-rel} = \frac{1}{2m}\left[ \vec\sigma\cdot \left(\vec p - \frac{q}{c}\vec A\right) \right]^2 + q\phi$$

The author then says that by the help of the relation for Pauli matrices, $\sigma_i\sigma_j=\delta_{ij} + i\epsilon_{ijk}\sigma_k$ we get the result:

$$H_\text{non-rel} = \frac{1}{2m}\left(\vec p - \frac{q}{c}\vec A\right)^2 - \frac{q\hbar}{2mc}\vec\sigma\cdot(\nabla\times\vec A) +q\phi$$

I was trying to follow this derivation, and thought it would be smart to use another identity for Pauli matrices, namely:

$$(\vec \sigma\cdot \vec a)(\vec\sigma\cdot\vec b) = (\vec a\cdot\vec b)\mathbf{I} + i\vec\sigma\cdot(\vec a\times\vec b)$$

My thinking: If I take $\vec a \equiv \vec p - \frac{q}{c}\vec A$, then the squared factor in the first equation is just $(\vec\sigma\cdot\vec a)^2$. But since $\vec a\times\vec a=0$, the above identity should imply that the whole cross term disappears. Since the authors result obviously does not agree we with me, where is the error in my approach?

Update: Making sure to respect what does and doesn't commute as suggested in comments and answer: $$(\vec p -\frac{q}{c}\vec A)\times(\vec p -\frac{q}{c}\vec A) = -\frac{q}{c}(\vec p\times\vec A + \vec A\times\vec p)$$ Looking at the first term, letting it act on a test function $f$: $$(\vec p\times\vec A)f=(-i\hbar\nabla\times\vec A)f = -i\hbar( (\nabla\times \vec A)f +(\nabla f)\times\vec A) = -i\hbar(\nabla\times\vec A - \vec A\times\nabla )f$$ Putting this back in cancels the second term and yields nicely the expected result.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ akhmeteli's answer is I think correct but I just wanted to observe that both identities that you're citing are absolutely identical. The author's relation is just your relation but leaving out the details of $\vec a$ and $\vec b$ by using a tensor-component notation. $\endgroup$
    – CR Drost
    Commented Sep 16, 2017 at 4:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The claim is that $(p - q/c A)\times(p-q/c A)$ should be broken down into its parts, $p\times p$ being identically zero in the momentum basis and therefore zero in the position basis, and $A \times A$ being identically zero in the position basis and therefore zero in the momentum basis -- but since they are noncommuting operators one has $p\times A - A \times p \ne 0$ in general. $\endgroup$
    – CR Drost
    Commented Sep 16, 2017 at 4:42
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, that should read $p\times A + A \times p \ne 0$ in general. Basically there is no basis which simultaneously diagonalizes both $p$ and $A$ to make the argument go through, because they don't commute; $A$ is a function of $x$ and $p$ is $-i\hbar\partial_x.$ $\endgroup$
    – CR Drost
    Commented Sep 16, 2017 at 4:54

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

I am not sure $\overrightarrow{a}\times\overrightarrow{a}=0$ in your case, you should take into account commutators of $p_i$ and $A_j$.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I thought this was a general result, holding for any arbitrary vector? I guess it may not be when operators are involved... I guess the same might be true for things like $\vec a\times\vec b = -\vec b\times\vec a$ - I can see how things won't hold anymore then. I'll try and work it out explicitly (again) and be extra mindful of possible non-zero commutators. $\endgroup$
    – Bendik
    Commented Sep 16, 2017 at 4:27

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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