0
$\begingroup$

I'm having son trouble when obtaining the Dirac equation. I am working in (1+1)-dimensional Minkowski spacetime with signature $(-, +)$ in coordinates $(t, x)\equiv(1, 2)$. I can think of two ways to obtain the Dirac Hamiltonian, but I'm having some trouble since they differ in an $i$ factor.

First way

I begin from the Dirac equation in this convention, which is: $$ (\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu-m)\psi=0\Rightarrow(\gamma^0\partial_0+\gamma^1\partial_1-m)\psi=0. $$

I follow now a single-particle approach: I want to obtain an Schrödinger-like equation, with $\psi(x)$ being the wavefunction that one gets when applying the fermionic operator to the vacuum state. The equation I want to reach is (in natural units): $$i\dot{\psi}=H_d\psi,$$ where $H_d$ is the single-particle Hamiltonian. The calculation is very simple and one arrives at: $$i\dot{\psi}=(i\gamma^0\gamma^1\partial_1-im\gamma^0)\psi\Rightarrow\boxed{H_d=i\gamma^0\gamma^1\partial_1-im\gamma^0}.$$

Second way

Now, I want a Lagrangian from which the Dirac equation can be derived. This can be achieved trivially with: $$\mathcal{L}=\bar{\psi}(\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu-m)\psi.$$ From this Lagrangian one can calculate the conjugate momentum: $$\Pi=\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial(\partial_{0}\psi)}=\bar{\psi}\gamma^0,$$ and then one can get the field Hamiltonian density as: $$\mathcal{H}=\Pi\partial_0\psi-\mathcal{L}=\bar{\psi}\gamma^0\partial_0\psi-\bar{\psi}\gamma^0\partial_0\psi-\bar{\psi}\gamma^1\partial_1\psi+m\bar{\psi}\psi=\\=-\bar{\psi}\gamma^1\partial_1\psi+m\bar{\psi}\psi.$$

Then, using $\bar{\psi}=\psi^\dagger\gamma^0$ and integrating I arrive at: $$\boxed{H=\int dx\; \psi^\dagger(-\gamma^0\gamma^1\partial_1+m\gamma^0)\psi}.$$

My question

I was expecting to obtain: $$H=\int dx\;\psi^\dagger H_d\psi,$$ where $H_d$ is the single-particle Hamiltonian that I obtained in the first way and $H$ is the Hamiltonian "with operators" that I obtained in the second way. Nevertheless, there is an extra $i$ factor in $H_d$ that I don't recover in the second approach. Most of the resources that I find uses the sign convention $(+,\,-)$ for the metric and they don't get this problem. So I guess the problem must be in some wrong definition that I'm using and that is not valid when using the $(-,\,+)$ signature, or maybe equation $i\dot{\psi}=H_d\psi$ should have no $i$ in the LHS?

$\endgroup$
1

1 Answer 1

-1
$\begingroup$

Your Dirac equation lacks a factor i. Your lagrangian lacks a factor i, as well.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ @TopoLynch I am not referring to a sign. $\endgroup$
    – my2cts
    Commented May 2, 2022 at 20:02
  • $\begingroup$ I mean, I know that the usual Dirac equation reads $(i\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu-m)\psi=0$, but that only stands for the convention $(+,-,-,-,..)$. For example arxiv.org/abs/1609.07904 eqn. 2 is a reference where the $(-,+,+,...)$ convention is assumed and the Dirac equation lacks the $i$ factor. $\endgroup$
    – TopoLynch
    Commented May 2, 2022 at 20:08
  • $\begingroup$ @TopoLynch The two conventions differ by a factor $-1$. $\endgroup$
    – my2cts
    Commented May 2, 2022 at 20:10
  • $\begingroup$ In order to satisfy the Clifford algebra, the gamma matrices absorb the $i$ factor. Weinberg, for example, uses this Dirac equation. This issue is discussed here: physics.stackexchange.com/q/507075. $\endgroup$
    – TopoLynch
    Commented May 2, 2022 at 20:14
  • $\begingroup$ Correct. I overlooked the i factor. $\endgroup$
    – my2cts
    Commented May 2, 2022 at 22:05

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.