1

We know that the K-G equation is deduced from the Einstein relation:

$E^{2}=m^{2} +\vec{p}^{2} \;\;\;\;$ (with $c=1$)

It is known that :$E^{2}=\frac{m^{2}}{1-\beta^{2}}=\left(\frac{m}{1-\beta}\right) \left(\frac{m}{1+\beta}\right) \;\;\;\;,\beta=\frac{v}{c} $

we assume that $$ E^{2}=E_{1}E_{2}=\left(\frac{m}{1-\beta}\right)\left(\frac{m}{1+\beta}\right)$$ and$$\vec{p}^{\;2}=\vec{p}_{1}.\vec{p}_{2}=\left(\frac{m\vec{v}}{1-\beta}\right). \left(\frac{m\vec{v}}{1+\beta}\right)$$ the Einstein equation is written $$E_{1}E_{2}-(\vec{\sigma}.\vec{p}_{1})\,(\vec{\sigma}.\vec{p}_{2})=m^{2}$$ we can deduce the previous equation from : $$ \left(E_{1}-\vec{\sigma}. \vec{p}_{1}\right) \left(E_{2}+ \vec{\sigma}.\vec{p}_{2}\right)=m^{2}$$ because: $\;\;\vec{\sigma}.\left( E_{1} p_{2}-E_{2} p_{1} \right)\vec{n}=0$ and $\vec{\sigma}^{\,2}=1$

by the correspondence equations $E=i\hbar\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\;,\;\vec{p}=-i\hbar\vec{\nabla}$, we have ; $$ (i\hbar)^{2}\left(\partial_{t_{1}}+\vec{\sigma}.\vec{\nabla}_{1}\right)\left(\partial_{t_{2}}-\vec{\sigma}.\vec{\nabla}_{2}\right)\psi_{1}\psi_{2}=m^{2}\psi_{1}\psi_{2}\;\;\;\;\;\;\;(1)$$ $$\psi(\vec{r},t)=\psi_{1}(\vec{r}_{1},t_{1})\psi_{2}(\vec{r}_{2},t_{2})$$ and $$\partial t^{2}=\frac{\partial\tau ^{2}}{1-\beta^{2}}=\left(\frac{\partial\tau }{1-\beta}\right)\left(\frac{\partial\tau }{1+\beta}\right)=\partial t_{1}\partial t_{2}$$ and $$\vec{\nabla}_{1}.\vec{\nabla}_{2}=\vec{\nabla}^{\;2}$$ for a massless particle, we have $$\left(\partial_{t_{1}}+\vec{\sigma}.\vec{\nabla}_{1}\right)\left(\partial_{t_{2}}-\vec{\sigma}.\vec{\nabla}_{2}\right)\psi_{1}\psi_{2}=0$$ i.e:$$\left(\partial_{t_{1}}+\vec{\sigma}.\vec{\nabla}_{1}\right)\psi_{1}=0$$ or $$\left(\partial_{t_{2}}-\vec{\sigma}.\vec{\nabla}_{2}\right)\psi_{2}=0$$ the two equations are similar to the the Weyl equations but the two spinors are different.

equation (1) can be written:

$$\left(\partial_{t_{1}}+\vec{\sigma}.\vec{\nabla}_{1}\right)\left(\partial_{t_{2}}-\vec{\sigma}.\vec{\nabla}_{2}\right)\psi_{1}\psi_{2}=\frac{m^{2}}{(i\hbar)^{2}}\psi_{1}\psi_{2}$$ we see that it is the product of two equations : $$\begin{cases}\left(\partial_{t_{1}}+\vec{\sigma}.\vec{\nabla}_{1}\right)\psi_{1}=\frac{m}{i\hbar}\psi_{1} \\ \left(\partial_{t_{2}}-\vec{\sigma}.\vec{\nabla}_{2}\right)\psi_{2}=\frac{m}{i\hbar}\psi_{2}\end{cases}$$

$$\begin{cases}\left(\partial_{t_{1}}+\vec{\sigma}.\vec{\nabla}_{1}+i\frac{m}{\hbar}\right)\psi_{1}=0 \\ \left(\partial_{t_{2}}-\vec{\sigma}.\vec{\nabla}_{2}+i\frac{m}{\hbar}\right)\psi_{2}=0\end{cases}$$ we have two decoupled ''spinors'' and their product is the wave function that verifies the K-G equation.

Is there something that I have missed?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
The Tiler
  • 1,357
  • 1
    I'm not sure if it is ok to identify $E_{1,2}$ with $i\hbar\partial_{t_{1,2}}$, same for momentum. How did you arrive at the expression $(\partial_{t_i}\pm \sigma.\nabla_i+im)\psi_i=0$ from $(\partial_{t_1}+\sigma.\nabla_1)(\partial_{t_2}-\sigma.\nabla_2)\psi_1\psi_2=m^2\psi_1\psi_2$? – KP99 Jan 30 '22 at 20:13
  • Each product operator acts on only one component of the product or wave function. – The Tiler Jan 30 '22 at 21:01
  • It is true, there are no equations E=m/(1-b) or =m/(1+b) in physics, but we would never know which physical ideas we can pour into the mathematical mold. A more basque vision of what I did: there are two ways to write a number for example 36=$6^{2}$=4.9, this is what I did with the Lorentz factor ,i.e with the Laplacian operator. – The Tiler Jan 31 '22 at 06:39
  • Intuitively it shouldn't be the case. A real scalar field has just one degree of freedom, but a dirac field has four degrees of freedom. You can't extract extra degrees of freedom from a real scalar field. It's other way around : a Dirac spinor will also satisfy the KG equation. It's a combination of the fact that dirac spinor has extra degrees of freedom and extra symmetries. Are you familiar with the identity : $\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{\nu}\partial_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}=\partial^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}$? – KP99 Jan 31 '22 at 07:11
  • I only made an analogy with scalars, that's why I left the vector sign when I used the square of the impulse and even to pass the hyperbolic PDE equation to the product, there is a vector condition =0. – The Tiler Jan 31 '22 at 09:08
  • If what I have written is right, it shows that the mathematical tools we use to understand nature are not 'absolute' but tools like any other and that it is the habit that makes them indispensable or the function that occupies in a mechanism (here it is the physical thought). – The Tiler Jan 31 '22 at 09:43
  • Ok...I am lost at this point. This calculation seems to be heuristic and based on some wishful thinking. There is indeed an analogy between spinor and klein gordon eqn, but you can't arrive at spinor eqn from klein gordon eqn. Actually, if you take any free spin n/2 field in flat space time, it will satisfy the Klein gordon eqn, but converse is not true – KP99 Jan 31 '22 at 09:57
  • What I understand that the equation of Dirac was obtained from the linearization of the equation E²-p²=m², i.e. that of K-G, for example in: L.Landau, Lifchitz, Theoretical physics, quantum electrodynamics, volume IV, A.Messiah, quantum mecanics, volume II, ....,(it is by induction, not by deduction),What I do not understand in your enlightening remarks (inverse way). – The Tiler Jan 31 '22 at 10:26

1 Answers1

1

Dirac originally arrived at spin-1/2 field equations by taking "square root" of the wave operator: $$\square=\not{\partial}\cdot\not{\partial}$$where $\not{\partial}=A\partial_x+B\partial_y+C\partial_z+iD\partial_t$ (see this Wikipedia article). After taking square and equating with the wave operator, we observe that the coefficients satisfy the same commutation relation as the Pauli matrices.

A Dirac field is a positive frequency solution for the equation $(i\not{\partial}-m)\psi=0$. From this expression it is not clear how a spin-1/2 wave function $\psi$ is related to a scalar field $\phi$ which satisfies free K.G. field equation. OP claims that it is possible to write a scalar field as product of two spinor like quantities, which requires some explanation. This is not possible in general, for (intuitive)reasons that I have mentioned in the comments. However, if $\psi$ satisfies the Dirac's equation, then it is also a solution for K.G. field equation: $$(i\not{\partial}-m)\psi=0\\ (i\not{\partial}+m)(i\not{\partial}-m)\psi=0\\ (\square+m^2)\psi=0$$which is expected since the primary motivation for solving Dirac equation was to arrive at restrictive class of solution for free K.G. field which could allow for positive definite current density. There is a more general result that any free massless spin-n/2 field in flat space-time will also satisfy the massless K.G. equation (see section 6.8 of Spinors and Space-Time Volume-II). It uses the idea of 2-spinor formalism (see Spinors and Space-Time Volume-I; An Introduction to Twistor Theory - S.A.Huggett & K.P.Tod). In flat space-time, if we are working with Minkowski null tetrad, then the Infeld-van der Waerden symbols are the Pauli matrices. It means that the 2$\times$2 operator: $$\sigma_a\nabla^a={\sigma_a}^{AA'}\nabla^a:\iff\nabla^{AA'}$$We can extend this construction for a curved space-time. It is more intuitive to arrive at tensorial equation starting from the 2-spinor algebra (to get the motivation see my answer in an earlier post here). In the language of 2-spinors, a free z.r.m. spin-n/2 field equation is given by $\nabla^{AA'}\phi_{\underbrace{AB\cdots L}_n}=0$. On contracting with $\nabla_{MA'}$ operator we get (after some manipulation): $$(\square+(n+2)R/12)\phi_{AB\cdots L}=2(n-1){\Psi_{(AB}}^{MN}\phi_{C\cdots L)MN}+2ie{\varphi_A}^M\phi_{MB\cdots L}$$You can find this expression in equation 6.8.35 of Spinors and space-time volume II. For flat space-time and if the spinor field is chargeless, the RHS is zero and the Ricci scalar is zero, hence we have $\square\phi_{AB\cdots L}=0$. Note that this expression is exact for $n>0$ only. However, it is possible to extend this definition to scalar field (n=0) by defining the limit where $n\to 0$ . This limit is well defined provided that $\Psi_{ABCD}=0$ (space-time is patch wise conformally flat) and $e\varphi_{AB}=0$ (no electromagnetic interaction), then we essentially end up with the conformally coupled scalar field equation: $$\left(\square+\frac{R}{6}\right)\phi=0$$

KP99
  • 1,684
  • @The Tiler Let me know if this is what you are looking for (the inverse way to arrive at KG eqn from dirac eqn) – KP99 Jan 31 '22 at 12:47
  • Yes, but I need time to understand, I don't have enough background to follow you. ( I am going to make a small excursion in the mentioned fields) – The Tiler Jan 31 '22 at 20:20
  • Sorry, thanks a lot for the efforts and details, an update is difficult but I will try :-) – The Tiler Jan 31 '22 at 20:50
  • Sure, no hurry! In the mean time, you could +1 or ✅ this answer. It will be appreciated :-) – KP99 Feb 01 '22 at 06:20