# Some questions about Dirac spinor transformation law

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
1206 views

I have perhaps meaningless question about Dirac spinors, but I'm at a loss.

The transformation laws for for left-handed and right-handed 2-spinors are $$\tag 1 \psi_{a} \to \psi_{a}' = N_{a}^{\quad b} \psi_{b} = \left(e^{\frac{1}{2}\omega^{\mu \nu}\sigma_{\mu \nu}}\right)_{a}^{\quad b}\psi_{b}, \quad \psi^{b}{'} = \psi^{a}(N^{-1})_{a}^{\quad b},$$ $$\tag 2 \psi_{\dot {a}} \to \psi_{\dot {a}}' = (N^{*})_{\dot {a}}^{\quad \dot {b}} \psi_{\dot {b}} = \left(e^{\frac{1}{2}\omega^{\mu \nu}\tilde {\sigma}_{\mu \nu}}\right)_{\dot {a}}^{\quad \dot {b}}\psi_{\dot {b}}, \quad \psi^{\dot {b}}{'} = \psi^{\dot {a}}(N^{*^{-1}})_{\dot {a}}^{\quad \dot {b}},$$ where $$(\sigma_{\mu \nu})_{a}^{\quad b} = -\frac{1}{4}\left(\sigma_{\mu}\tilde {\sigma}_{\nu}-\sigma_{\nu}\tilde {\sigma}_{\mu}\right), \quad (\tilde {\sigma}_{\mu \nu})_{\quad \dot {a}}^{\dot {b}} = -\frac{1}{4}\left(\tilde {\sigma}_{\mu} \sigma_{\nu}- \tilde {\sigma}_{\nu}\sigma_{\mu}\right),$$ $$(\sigma_{\mu})_{b\dot {b}} = (\hat {E}, \sigma_{i}), \quad (\tilde {\sigma}_{\nu})^{\dot {a} a} = -\varepsilon^{\dot {a}\dot {b}}\varepsilon^{b a} \sigma_{\dot {b} b} = (\hat {E}, -\sigma_{i}).$$ Why do we always take the Dirac spinor as $$\Psi = \begin{pmatrix} \varphi_{a} \\ \kappa^{\dot {b}} \end{pmatrix},$$ not as $$\Psi = \begin{pmatrix} \varphi_{a} \\ \kappa_{\dot {b}} \end{pmatrix}?$$ According to $(1), (2)$ first one transforms as $$\delta \Psi ' = \frac{1}{2}\omega^{\mu \nu}\begin{pmatrix}\sigma_{\mu \nu} & 0 \\ 0 & -\tilde {\sigma}_{\mu \nu} \end{pmatrix}\Psi ,$$ while the second one - as $$\delta \Psi ' = \frac{1}{2}\omega^{\mu \nu}\begin{pmatrix}\sigma_{\mu \nu} & 0 \\ 0 & \tilde {\sigma}_{\mu \nu} \end{pmatrix}\Psi ,$$ so it is more natural than first, because the first one has both covariant and contravariant components, while the second has only covariant (contravariant components).

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-01 16:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user Andrew McAddams
Are the indices a b correct in 1 and 2 ?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-01 16:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user Love Learning
@LoveLearning : did you ask about the horisontal position of the indices? If yes, I think so.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-01 16:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user Andrew McAddams
Maybe I'm too tired but you use b as a summation and as an index etc.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-01 16:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user Love Learning
@LoveLearning : yes, thank you. I fixed it.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-01 16:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user Andrew McAddams

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

I think it is convention to write the conjugate Weyl fermion in, $$\left( \begin{array}{c} \phi _\alpha \\ \bar{\kappa} ^{\dot{\beta }} \end{array} \right)$$ (it is common to put a bar over the conjugate representation), with a raised index in order to comply with the ${} _{ \dot{\alpha} } ^{ \,\, \dot{\alpha} }$ contraction of spinor indicies. Recall that we write, $$\phi \chi \equiv \phi ^\alpha \chi _\alpha , \quad \psi \bar{\chi} \equiv \phi _{\dot{\alpha}} \bar{\chi} ^{\dot{\alpha}}$$ Thus having the particular index structure for the Dirac spinor gives, \begin{align} \bar{ \Psi } \gamma ^\mu \Psi & = \left( \begin{array}{cc} \kappa ^{\beta } &\bar{ \phi} _{\dot{\alpha}}\end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & ( \sigma ^\mu ) _{ \beta \dot{\beta} } \\ ( \bar{\sigma} ^\mu ) ^{ \dot{\alpha } \alpha } & 0 \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{c} \phi _\alpha \\ \bar{ \kappa} ^{\dot{\beta}} \end{array} \right) \\ & = \kappa \sigma ^\mu \bar{\kappa} + \bar{\phi} \bar{\sigma} ^\mu \phi \end{align} where all the dotted indices contract with an "upwards staircase", ${}_{ \dot{\alpha} } ^{ \,\, \dot{\alpha} }$, and undotted with a "downwards staircase", ${} ^\alpha _{ \,\, \alpha }$.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-01 16:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user JeffDror
answered Mar 9, 2014 by (650 points)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-01 16:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user Andrew McAddams

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-01 16:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user JeffDror
+ 0 like - 0 dislike

I suspect the origin of this might have to do with the bi-spinor notation. Given a four-vector $b_\mu$, one defines the corresponding bi-spinor, $b\!\!/_{\alpha\dot{\beta}}=b_\mu (\sigma^\mu)_{\alpha\dot{\beta}}$. In this convention, bi-spinors have both lower indices (or upper indices if one uses $(\bar{\sigma}^\mu)^{\beta\dot{\alpha}})$. Once such a choice is made, the index structure of $4\times 4$ gamma matrices is fixed leading to what seems a strange choice for the index structure for a Dirac spinor. In order to avoid such details, I usually use a single meta index $A=(\alpha,\dot{\alpha})$ (capital letters) to denote the combination leaving the finer detail only when I need to work explicitly with gamma matrices. I recommend appendix A of the article by M. Sohnius titled "Introducing Supersymmetry" (Physics Reports 128 (1985) 39-204).

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-01 16:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user suresh
answered Mar 9, 2014 by (1,545 points)
$b_{\mu}\sigma^{\mu}_{a \dot {b}}$ refers to the $\left( \frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2} \right)$ representation, have diffenent transformation law and another equation comparing to bispinor rep. Maybe it is impossible to move from the direct sum of $\left(\frac{1}{2}, 0 \right) + \left( 0, \frac{1}{2}\right)$ rep to the 4-vector one (however, it would be possible if rep is $(1, 0)$ or $(0, 1)$). Can you comment it?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-01 16:08 (UCT), posted by SE-user Andrew McAddams

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$ysicsOverflo$\varnothing$Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.