3
$\begingroup$

The Dirac gamma matrices are a set defined by the 16 following matrices: $$\Gamma^{(a)}=\{I_{4x4},\gamma^\mu,\sigma^{\mu\nu},\gamma_5\gamma^\mu,\gamma_5\}.\tag{2.122}$$ Now, I wish to determine the inverse set of gamma matrices, $\Gamma_a$.

According to Ashok Das' Lectures on QFT page 58 equation 2.124, the inverse should be defined as: $$\Gamma_{(a)}=\frac{\Gamma^{(a)}}{Tr(\Gamma^{(a)}\Gamma^{(a)})}\qquad a \text{ not summed}.\tag{2.124}$$ But I don't understand where this comes from, or why it makes sense. If I pick any gamma matrix, say $\gamma_5=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & I_{2x2} \\ I_{2x2} & 0 \end{pmatrix}.$

I can calculate $$\Gamma_a=\frac{\begin{pmatrix} 0 & I_{2x2} \\ I_{2x2} & 0 \end{pmatrix}}{Tr(\begin{pmatrix} 0 & I_{2x2} \\ I_{2x2} & 0 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 0 & I_{2x2} \\ I_{2x2} & 0 \end{pmatrix})}=\frac{\begin{pmatrix} 0 & I_{2x2} \\ I_{2x2} & 0 \end{pmatrix}}{Tr(I_{4x4})}=\frac{1}{4}\begin{pmatrix} 0 & I_{2x2} \\ I_{2x2} & 0 \end{pmatrix}$$ But here, clearly $$\Gamma_a\Gamma^a=\frac{I_{4x4}}{4},$$ which is not what I expect. So how is this properly used? How does one define the inverse Dirac Gamma Matrices?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Just a note that I think you'd have the same problem with choosing $I_{4\times 4}$ instead of $\gamma_5$. That might be an easier example to debug. $\endgroup$
    – Andrew
    Jan 4, 2023 at 19:12

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

Yes, Ashok Das should strictly speaking not call (2.124) the "inverse set of matrices"; they are only proportional$^1$ to the inverse. Rather (2.124) is (2.122) where the upper collective index $(a)$ of the 16 matrices (2.122) has been lowered by a metric $g_{(a)(b)}$. The (inverse) metric is here defined as $$g^{(a)(b)}~:=~ {\rm Tr}(\Gamma^{(a)}\Gamma^{(b)}), \qquad a,b~\in~\{1,\ldots,16\},\tag{2.123}$$ which is diagonal. The explicit list of $\Gamma_{(a)}$ is given in (2.126).

--

$^1$ It is straightforward to check this explicitly by going through the list.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Is there a reason why for the Gamma matrix lowering (or raising) the index gives us the inverse of that matrix? I mean, is it a coincidence or is that always the case? $\endgroup$ Jan 4, 2023 at 19:26
  • $\begingroup$ @Nick Heumann It is implicit in the Dirac Clifford algebra with one index down and one up, in which case the r.h.s. is a Kronecker δ... $\endgroup$ Jan 4, 2023 at 21:14

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.