$$\mathcal{L}=\bar\psi(i\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu-m)\psi,$$ taking Euler-Lagrange equation on $\bar\psi$ gives the more familiar Dirac equation $$(i\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu-m)\psi=0$$ and its adjoint version $$\bar\psi(i\gamma^\mu\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial_\mu}+m)=0 .$$

Taking E-L equation on $\psi$ however gives $$\bar\psi(i\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu-m)=\partial_\mu(\bar\psi i\gamma^\mu)$$ which clearly constrains $\bar\psi$ differently. What is going on here?

  • $\begingroup$ The r.h.s. of your third equation should not be there. I would advice you to check your derivation. $\endgroup$
    – Christophe
    Mar 14, 2023 at 6:51
  • $\begingroup$ For some reason you kept the $\partial_\mu$-term on the l.h.s. of the last equation, which is supposed to be $\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial\psi}$. If you drop it, you're fine. $\endgroup$
    – go_science
    Mar 14, 2023 at 17:56

1 Answer 1


(I haven’t checked the equations of motion you have written, I am assuming they are right)

In quantum field theory fields $(\phi)$are operators but positions $x$ are not. So $\partial_\mu$ is also not an operator. That means conjugate of $ {\partial_\mu\psi}$ is just $ {\partial_\mu\bar\psi}$

So the adjoint of EOM with respect to $\psi$ is actually $$(i\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu+m) \bar\psi =0 $$

Now use product rule on EL equation on $\psi$ to see that they are the same.


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.