Primary calculation involving the Dirac gama matrices

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a confusion regarding the calculation steps in exercise 3.2 of Peskin's QFT, specifically related to the Dirac gamma matrices. The user notes that momentum is treated as an operator in the solution, which aligns with the Dirac equation where momentum is represented as ##p_\mu = i\partial_\mu##. Clarification is provided that while momentum in the Dirac equation is an operator, in solutions it serves as an eigenvalue of that operator. The absence of a minus sign in front of momentum is explained by the metric convention used, where the energy operator is ##p_0 = i\partial_t## and the spatial momentum operator is ##\textbf{p} = -i\nabla##. This highlights the importance of sign conventions in quantum field theory calculations.
YSM
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
How to work out a calculation involving properties of gama matrices and the dirac equation.
Relevant Equations
showed below
When working on the exercise 3.2 of Peskin's QFT, I find one of the calculating steps confused for me. I read the solution, which is showed in the picture. I just don't understand the boxed part.

I know it involved the Dirac equation, and the solution seems to treat the momentum as a operator, because only in this way can I relate the momentum in the equation with the partial derivative in the Dirac Equation. But I don't think the momentum in the solution of Dirac field serve as an operator.
 

Attachments

  • the calculation.png
    the calculation.png
    25.4 KB · Views: 260
Physics news on Phys.org
Momentum in Dirac equation indeed is an operator, in fact: ##p_\mu = i\partial_\mu##. So if that's the only problem, there's your answer.

Edit: Momentum in solutions of Dirac equation is eigenvalue of momentum operator, though they're usually denoted with the same letter.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your answer, but why no minus sign in front of p?
 
It's the sign convention where metric is given by ##diag(1, -1, -1, -1)##. So in that convention the energy operator is given by ##p_0 = i\partial_t## as it should be, and 3-momentum operator is given by ##\textbf{p} = -i\nabla## because ##p^i = -p_i## for spatial indices.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top