1
$\begingroup$

I was asking myself if there is a closed formula for the following product of gamma matrices:

$$\gamma_\mu\gamma_\nu \gamma_5.$$

I would like to express this matrix in terms of the basis

$${\mathbb{1}, \gamma_{5}, \gamma_{\mu}, \gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5},[\gamma_{\nu},\gamma_{\mu}]} .$$

Thank you very much for any help.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Hint: Use the Levi-Civita tensor $\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$. $\endgroup$ – suresh Feb 2 '14 at 0:40
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, Suresh. I found $\gamma_\mu\gamma_\nu\gamma_5=i \varepsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta} \gamma^\alpha \gamma^\beta$ when I take $\varepsilon^{0123}=1$. $\endgroup$ – Melquíades Feb 2 '14 at 0:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is encouraged to add your own answer to your question if you have found the solution yourself. $\endgroup$ – kleingordon Feb 2 '14 at 0:59
2
$\begingroup$

Given a vector space with a basis, one way to find the coordinates of a given vector with respect to that basis would be to define an inner product which makes the basis orthogonal. Then if the vector in question is $v$ and the basis is $e_i$, then the $i$th coordinate of $v$ is $\frac{v \cdot e_i }{|e_i|^2}$.

This is the strategy I will use here, but the question is to find the appropriate inner product. Since all I seem to remember from QFT is doing traces of these matrices, the natural inner product seems to be multiplying the two matrices together and taking the trace.

I should say that to stick with this strategy I will view the indices as enumeration indices instead of lorentz indices. Thus I will not raise or lower them although summation will be implied over repeated indices. At the very end I will go back to usual notation.

The first step then is to verify that this basis is indeed orthogonal with respect to this inner product. This is easily checked once a few identies are recalled. First, the trace of $\gamma^5$ with fewer than four $\gamma$s (of the non-five variety) is zero; $\gamma^5$ anticommutes with $\gamma^\mu$; $\mathrm{Tr} \gamma^5 = 0$; the trace of an odd number of $\gamma$'s (of the non-five variety) is zero; $(\gamma^5)^2=1$; and $\mathrm{Tr}(\gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu) = 4 g^{\mu \nu}$.

Now we need to compute two things: the square norm of each basis element, and compute the inner product of our vector with each basis element.

Let's start with the first. We have $\mathrm{Tr}(1*1)=4$,

$\mathrm{Tr}(\gamma^5*\gamma^5)=\mathrm{Tr}(1)=4$,

$\mathrm{Tr}(\gamma^\mu *\gamma^\nu )=\mathrm{Tr}(\gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu) = 4g^{\mu\nu}$. This is zero for $\mu \ne \nu$ and it is $4(-1)^\mu$ for $\mu = \nu$, where $(-1)^\mu$ is just the $\mu$th diagonal entry of $g^{\mu\nu}$.

$\mathrm{Tr}(\gamma^\mu \gamma^5*\gamma^\nu \gamma^5)=\mathrm{Tr}(-\gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu \gamma^5\gamma^5) = -4g^{\mu\nu} = -4(-1)^\mu$ for $\mu = \nu$ and zero otherwise.

$\mathrm{Tr}([\gamma^\mu, \gamma^\nu]*[\gamma^\lambda \gamma^\eta])$ is just $4 \mathrm{Tr}(\gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu \gamma^\lambda \gamma^\eta)$ antisymmetrized over $(\mu \nu)$ and $(\lambda \eta)$, so it is the same as $16(g^{\mu \nu} g^{\lambda \eta} - g^{\mu \lambda} g^{\mu \eta} + g^{\mu \eta} g^{\lambda \nu})$ antisymmetrized over $(\mu \nu)$ and $(\lambda \eta)$. Thus it is the same as $-16(g^{\mu \eta} g^{\lambda \nu} -g^{\mu \lambda} g^{\mu \eta} )$ antisymmetrized over $(\mu \nu)$ and $(\lambda \eta)$. Since we don't consider $\mu = \nu$ or $\lambda = \eta$ here, this is only non-zero if $\{\mu, \nu \} = \{\lambda, \eta\}$ as a set. Without loss of generality we may assume $\mu = \lambda$ and $\nu = \eta$. Then the expression becomes $-16((-1)^\mu(-1)^\nu)$

Now that that is done we can compute our inner products with the matrix in question. The inner products of our vector with $1$, $\gamma^\lambda$, and $\gamma^\lambda \gamma^5$ are zero. However, the inner product with $\gamma^5$ is $4 g^{\mu \nu}$, and the inner product with $[\gamma^\lambda, \gamma^\eta]$ is $-8i \epsilon^{\lambda \eta \mu \nu}$.

Putting the two pieces from the last two paragraphs together, we get that our matrix is $g^{\mu \nu} \gamma^5 + \frac{i \epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \eta}}{2(-1)^\lambda(-1)^\eta}\ \ [\gamma^\lambda, \gamma^\eta] = g^{\mu \nu} \gamma^5 + \frac{i}{2} \epsilon ^{\mu \nu} {}_{\lambda \eta}[\gamma^\lambda, \gamma^\eta] $. Note this expression differs from one given in the comments to the question.

This formula can be checked with mathematica code:

g = DiagonalMatrix[{1, -1, -1, -1}];

unit2d = IdentityMatrix[2];

(sigma1 = {{0, 1}, {1, 0}}) // MatrixForm

(sigma2 = {{0, -I}, {I, 0}}) // MatrixForm

(sigma3 = {{1, 0}, {0, -1}}) // MatrixForm

makeGamma[sigma_] := 
 ArrayFlatten[{{0*unit2d, sigma}, {-sigma, 0*unit2d}}]

(gamma1 = makeGamma[sigma1]) // MatrixForm

(gamma2 = makeGamma[sigma2]) // MatrixForm

(gamma3 = makeGamma[sigma3]) // MatrixForm

(gamma0 = 
   ArrayFlatten[{{0*unit2d, unit2d}, {unit2d, 
      0*unit2d}}]) // MatrixForm

(gamma5 = DiagonalMatrix[{-1, -1, 1, 1}]) // MatrixForm


gammas = {gamma0, gamma1, gamma2, gamma3};

calculateDirect[i_, j_] := gammas[[i + 1]].gammas[[j + 1]].gamma5

calculateWithCoordinates[i_, j_] := Module[
  {
   otherIndices = Complement[{0, 1, 2, 3}, {i, j}],
   lambda,
   eta
   },
  lambda = otherIndices[[1]];
  eta = otherIndices[[2]];
  g[[i + 1, j + 1]]*gamma5 + 
   I*g[[lambda + 1, lambda + 1]]*g[[eta + 1, eta + 1]]*
    Signature[{i, j, lambda, 
      eta}]*(gammas[[lambda + 1]].gammas[[eta + 1]] - 
       gammas[[eta + 1]].gammas[[lambda + 1]])/2
  ]


errorSoFar = 0;
For[i = 0, i < 4, i++,
 For[j = 0, j < 4, j++,
  errorSoFar += 
   Total[Total[
     Abs[calculateDirect[i, j] - calculateWithCoordinates[i, j]]
     ]
    ]
  ]
 ]
errorSoFar
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I just disagree about a small point: there is a factor two missing in your final equation: $\eta_{\mu\nu}\gamma^5+i \varepsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\eta}[\gamma^\lambda,\gamma^\eta]/2$. $\endgroup$ – Melquíades Feb 2 '14 at 20:46
  • $\begingroup$ Is $[\gamma^\lambda, \gamma ^\eta] = \frac{1}{2}(\gamma^\lambda \gamma ^\eta - \gamma ^\eta \gamma^\lambda)$? That's what I thought, and my mathematica code is consistent with this. In other words, if you interpret my final formula that way, then it is correct. $\endgroup$ – Brian Moths Feb 2 '14 at 21:17
  • $\begingroup$ oh ya sorry I was confusing $[\gamma^\lambda,\gamma^\eta]$ with $\gamma^{[\lambda} \gamma^{\eta]}$. $\endgroup$ – Brian Moths Feb 3 '14 at 18:48

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.