Talk:Dirac spinor

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Dirac spinors and the Dirac algebra[edit]

This should be merged with Dirac equation. It should also be explained why this particular normalization is chosen. Aoosten (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't merge. One can certainly say lots and lots of stuff about Dirac spinors that have little to do with the Dirac equation. Sadly, this article does not yet say any of these things :-( linas (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bispinor now says most of those things. And Clifford algebra now says the rest. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intro Description Without Math?[edit]

Would it be possible to give a short intro that explains to a non-mathematical person what a Dirac spinor is?

No. Ok. just kidding. But seriously, no. At some point, mathematics is just not explainable in non-mathematical terms. Although maybe the lede for this article could be better. linas (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dirac spinors and the Dirac algebra[edit]

Somebody should explain here as well shortly, in prose, what is done here and, even more important, why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.5.34.202 (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find this section to be opaque and poorly written. For example, instead of introducing

\sigma _{\mu \nu }

as the angular momentum operator, which is how the subject is conventionally developed, it instead tries to cobble it together in some ad hoc fashion without any explanation. I'm tempted to blank the entire section. It's not actually wrong, its just ... naive, unmotivated, opaque. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the entire section to bispinor where perhaps it will have a happier existence. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spin(3,1)[edit]

This article should also mention/discuss relationship to the Spin group Spin(3,1) which is a double cover of SO(3,1). linas (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should also describe how it transforms under boosts and rotations. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dirac basis and chiral basis[edit]

Most of the article uses the Dirac basis but the last section uses the chiral basis, which is slightly confusing. Count Truthstein (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Per comment above, on "Dirac spinors and the Dirac algebra", the correct solution is probably to just blank the entire section. Its not wrong, its just badly written, naively written without motivation or explanation. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the entire section to bispinor where perhaps it will have a happier existence. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Normalization in Four-spinor for particles section[edit]

This should reflect the fact that some people choose different normalizations. Also, unless I'm mistaken, the most popular normalization is 2E, not 2m. This scales as $\gamma$ under a Lorentz boost, the same as Volume so the total normalization per unit vol stays the same which is the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Baynham (talk • contribs) 16:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The normalization in that version of the article was ... weird. It was actually talking about the zero component for the four-vector

V_{\mu }

its been fixed/removed. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]