A Confused about going from relativistic to non-relativistic Hamilonian

Malamala
Messages
345
Reaction score
28
Hello! My question is related to going from Eq. 32 to Eq. 33 in this paper (however I have seen this in other papers, too). In summary, starting with:

$$H \propto \bar{e}\gamma_\mu\gamma_5 e \bar{q}\gamma^\mu q$$
where we have the gamma matrices, e is the electron field and q is the quark/nucleon field, if we assume the nucleus is non-relativistic we end up with:

$$H \propto \gamma_5\rho(r)$$
where ##\rho(r)## is the nuclear density and this is a Hamiltonian acting in the electronic sector.

My confusions are:
1. Where did the electronic ##\gamma_\mu## go?
2. (More important) I am not sure I understand the ##\rho(r)## term. Is r referring to the nuclear or electronic position? If it is nuclear, I am confused as, given we integrated out the nuclear part, the nuclear term should be a constant, no? If it refers to electron, I am not sure how to think of the nuclear density as a function of electron coordinates and how does it even end up being a function of the electronic coordiates?

I would really appreciate some help with this. Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
##\rho=j^{0}=\bar{q}\gamma^0 q=q^{\dagger} q##. In the non-relativistic limit, the dominating term is indeed the Coulomb-like interaction.
 
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
This is still a great mystery, Einstein called it ""spooky action at a distance" But science and mathematics are full of concepts which at first cause great bafflement but in due course are just accepted. In the case of Quantum Mechanics this gave rise to the saying "Shut up and calculate". In other words, don't try to "understand it" just accept that the mathematics works. The square root of minus one is another example - it does not exist and yet electrical engineers use it to do...
Back
Top