I emphasize that the proceeding is purely classical physics. Consider the Grassmann-valued field (where $\mathcal{N}$ is a Grassmann number), which is a solution to the Dirac equation, given by $$\psi(x) = \mathcal{N}\begin{pmatrix} \sqrt{\omega - k} \\ 0 \\ \sqrt{\omega + k} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} e^{-i\omega x^0 + ikx^3}.$$ The $0$th component of the Noether current corresponding to the continuous symmetry of rotations around the $z$-axis yields $$l_z = \psi^\dagger \frac{1}{2} \begin{pmatrix} \sigma_3 && 0 \\ 0 && \sigma_3 \end{pmatrix} \psi$$ where the "orbital angular momentum density" contribution is clearly $0$, so it has been omitted. We identify the remaining contribution to $l_z$ as "spin angular momentum density". Hence, the spin angular momentum density for this particular $\psi(x)$ is given by $$l_z = \mathcal{N}^* \mathcal{N}\omega.$$ Hence, the "spin density" of the field is dependent on frequency (energy) $\omega$. How do I physically make sense of the spin density being variable and depending on $\omega$? Is this perhaps the fact that once we quantize a Dirac field we may have multiple "spin-$1/2$ excitations", i.e. particles, corresponding to said field, so the spin density should take into account the spin of all such excitations?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
4
-
$\begingroup$ Did you properly do the matrix multiplication? Don't you get $l_z = \mathcal{N}^*\mathcal{N} \sqrt{\omega^2 - k^2} = \mathcal{N}^*\mathcal{N} m$? $\endgroup$– Gabriel Ybarra MarcaidaCommented Mar 25 at 9:26
-
$\begingroup$ I have that the action of the matrix to the spinor on its right is equivalent to acting with the identity. Is this incorrect? The matrix is equal to $\text{diag}(1,-1, 1, -1)$ which acts on a four component vector by doing nothing to the first and third component and multiplying the second and fourth component by $-1$. But the second and fourth components are just $0$. @GabrielYbarraMarcaida $\endgroup$– Silly GooseCommented Mar 25 at 9:35
-
$\begingroup$ Separately, an "at rest" solution will have $l_z$ equal to the quantity you write in your comment. $\endgroup$– Silly GooseCommented Mar 25 at 9:37
-
1$\begingroup$ Sorry, you're right, an early morning mixed with a bias for the result I wanted made me mess up the algebra ;) $\endgroup$– Gabriel Ybarra MarcaidaCommented Mar 25 at 9:40
Add a comment
|