0
$\begingroup$

Is the term:

$$γ^μ γ_μ$$ An identity matrix? Since,if we start with both the Dirac equation, $$(iγ^μ ∂_μ-m)Ѱ=0$$ We find that, $$iγ^μ ∂_μ=m$$ If we square both sides, we get, $$-γ^μ γ_μ∂^μ ∂_μ=m^{2}$$ Therefore, $$-γ^μ γ_μ ∂^μ ∂_μ-m^2=0$$ $$γ^μ γ_μ ∂^μ ∂_μ+m^2=0$$ This situation above resembles the Klein-Gordon equation, solely as an operator, as seen below, $$(\Box+m^2 )=0$$ Were $\Box$ denotes the d'Alembert operator.

Therefore, $$γ^μ γ_μ ∂^μ ∂_μ+m^2=(\Box+m^2 )$$

Therefore, $$γ^μ γ_μ ∂^μ ∂_μ=\Box$$ Since the d'Alembert operator, is defined as $$\Box=∂^μ ∂_μ$$ The only way for the above equation to be true is if, $$γ^μ γ_μ $$ equals an identity matrix?

Is my reasoning correct, if it isn't then what is the flaw?

$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ In an eigenvalue problem $A\mathbf x=\lambda\mathbf x\to (A-\lambda I)\mathbf x=0$ does this necessarily mean that $A-\lambda I=0$? $\endgroup$ – BioPhysicist Nov 22 '19 at 4:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_matrices#Miscellaneous_identities $\endgroup$ – G. Smith Nov 22 '19 at 5:01
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There is a conventional explicit choice for the four gamma matrices. You could have tried computing $\gamma^\mu\gamma_\mu$ straightforwardly by matrix multiplication, addition, and subtraction, and discovered that it is not the identity matrix (so you would have realized that you must have made a mistake somewhere). However, it turns out that it is a multiple of the identity matrix. $\endgroup$ – G. Smith Nov 22 '19 at 5:05
5
$\begingroup$

You are using $\mu$ as an index too many times. When you square $\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu$, you have to use a different index for the two factors. Here is a correct derivation:

Starting with $(i \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - m) \psi = 0$, apply $-(i \gamma^\nu \partial_\nu + m)$ from the left: $$ 0 = -(i \gamma^\nu \partial_\nu + m)(i \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - m) \psi = (\gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu \partial_\mu \partial_\nu + m^2) \psi. $$ Now, since $\partial_\mu \partial_\nu = \partial_\nu \partial_\mu$, i.e. it is symmetric, only the symmetric part $$ \gamma^{(\mu} \gamma^{\nu)} = \frac{\{\gamma^\mu, \gamma^\nu\}}{2} = \frac{\gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu + \gamma^\nu \gamma^\mu}{2} $$ will survive: $$ \gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu \partial_\mu \partial_\nu = \gamma^{(\mu} \gamma^{\nu)} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu. $$ But, the defining feature of the $\gamma$ matrices is that $\gamma^{(\mu} \gamma^{\nu)} = \eta^{\mu\nu}$. So you get $$ (\eta^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \partial_\nu + m^2) \psi = 0, $$ i.e. $$ (\partial^\mu \partial_\mu + m^2) \psi = 0, $$ the Klein-Gordon equation.


As for what $\gamma^\mu \gamma_\mu$ is, $$ \gamma^\mu \gamma_\mu = \gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu \eta_{\mu\nu} = \gamma^{(\mu} \gamma^{\nu)} \eta_{\mu\nu} = \eta^{\mu\nu} \eta_{\mu\nu} = \delta^\mu_\mu = d = 4 $$ if you are working in a four-dimensional spacetime. Here, they key step is using that $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ is symmetric.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.