1
$\begingroup$

This question pertains to some notation in Zee's QFT book, Section II.2. The Dirac equation is

$$ (i\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu-m)\psi(x)=0, $$

which we can write in momentum space with the Fourier transform

$$ \psi(x)=\int\!\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}e^{-ipx}\psi(p)$$

as

\begin{align} (i\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu-m)\int\!\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}e^{-ipx}\psi(p)&=0\\ \int\!\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}(\gamma^\mu p_\mu-m)e^{-ipx}\psi(p)&=0\\[8pt] \implies(\gamma^\mu p_\mu-m)\psi(p)&=0, \end{align}

which is the Dirac equation in momentum space. In the rest frame, $p_i=0$ and $p_0=m$ so we have

$$ (\gamma^\mu p_\mu-m)\psi(p)=(\gamma^0p_0+\gamma^ip_i-m)\psi(p) =0\quad\implies\quad(\gamma^0-1)\psi(p)=0.$$ For two Dirac bispinors $u$ and $v$, the solutions are

$$\psi(p)=u(p,s)e^{-ipx}~~,\quad\text{and}\qquad \psi(p)=v(p,s)e^{ipx}.$$

We define $\bar u=u^\dagger\gamma^0$ and $\bar v=v^\dagger\gamma^0$, with dagger denoting the conjugate transpose, to form Lorentz invariants $\bar uu$ and $\bar vv$. Now I have gotten to my question. Zee gives a rest frame identity

$$ \sum_s u_\alpha(p,s)\bar u_\beta(p,s)=\left( \begin{matrix} 1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\end{matrix} \right)_{\!\alpha\beta}. $$

If it's not the spin $s$, which it is clearly not, then what do the $\alpha,\beta$ subscripts refer to? Is it two discrete positions $\alpha$ and $\beta$? What is the meaning of the subscript $\alpha\beta$ on the matrix? Does that turn it into a Kronecker matrix?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The expression in a general frame is $$ \frac 1{2m}(m+p_\mu \gamma^\mu)= \sum_{s=\pm} u(p,s)\bar u(p,s) $$ where $$ u(p,s)= \left[\matrix{u(p,s)_1\cr u(p,s)_2\cr u(p,s)_3\cr u(p,s)_4}\right], \\ \bar u(p,s)=[ \bar u(p,s)_1, \bar u(p,s)_2, \bar u(p,s)_3, \bar u(p,s)_4 ], $$ so $ u \bar u$ is a 4-by-4 matrix just like the $\gamma$'s.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ What does the $\alpha\beta$ subscript on the matrix mean? This was the major thrust of my question, thanks. $\endgroup$ – hodop smith Nov 14 '20 at 22:52
  • $\begingroup$ It means that the $\alpha, \beta$ entry in the 4-by4 matrix $u\bar u$ is the $\alpha,\beta$ entry in the 4-by-4matrix (m+\gamma^\mu p_\mu)/2m$ $\endgroup$ – mike stone Nov 15 '20 at 16:06
  • $\begingroup$ So that notation is completely irrelevant and redundant because we already know that's true for two matrices that are equal to each other? $\endgroup$ – hodop smith Nov 15 '20 at 18:23
0
$\begingroup$

What do the $\alpha,\beta$ subscripts refer to?

On $u_\alpha$ and $\bar u_\beta$ they pick out one of the four components of these Dirac bispinors.

What is the meaning of the subscript $\alpha\beta$ on the matrix?

The $\alpha$ picks out one of the four rows and the $\beta$ picks out one of the four columns, so together they pick out an element of the matrix.

Does that turn it into a Kronecker matrix?

No. A Kronecker delta has four, not two, ones on the diagonal.

$\endgroup$
12
  • $\begingroup$ You wrote, "they pick out one of the four components of these Dirac bispinors." Since we are in the rest frame, I believe these only have two available components each. I thought $s$ tells us which one we use. Don't the two rest frame degree of freedom correspond to the two degrees of freedom: spin up and spin down? This is exactly the issue which was confusing me. Thanks! $\endgroup$ – hodop smith Nov 14 '20 at 17:34
  • $\begingroup$ A Dirac bispinor has four components in every frame. Some may be zero. $\endgroup$ – G. Smith Nov 14 '20 at 17:47
  • $\begingroup$ $s$ doesn’t pick out a component of the bispinor. It specifies which of the two possible bispinors for a particular momentum you’re talking about. $\endgroup$ – G. Smith Nov 14 '20 at 17:51
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, G. Smith. Ones that are zero are not "available." Furthermore, $s$ certainly does pick out the components. If we have $u(p,s)=\left(\begin{matrix}u_1\\u_2\\0\\0\end{matrix}\right)$ then $u(p,s_1)=\left(\begin{matrix}u_1\\0\\0\\0\end{matrix}\right)$ and $u(p,s_2):=\left(\begin{matrix}0\\u_2\\0\\0\end{matrix}\right)$. I think these are called "eigenspinors." Would you please edit your answer? I am sure you are wrong. $\endgroup$ – hodop smith Nov 14 '20 at 20:07
  • $\begingroup$ That is the wrong way to think about $s$ because it doesn’t work like that in an arbitrary frame. See Wikipedia. The notation is for an arbitrary Lorentz frame. $\endgroup$ – G. Smith Nov 14 '20 at 21:46

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.