Talk:Dirac equation in the algebra of physical space

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Physics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article cannot be understood without the background given by the following wikipedia articles:

Is this article needed ?

I seriously question the need for writing a whole article on the Dirac equation using a certain formalism - also, this can easily get out of hand: articles on Einstein's equations using various formalisms, Schrodinger equation etc... ? Let's not fall into the trap of writing a textbook here (there are other places where that can be done - Wikibooks). If this topic needs to be discussed, then surely it can be included in the Dirac equation article itself. MP (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

  • This article will be part of the wikibook [[User::cabrer7]] February 24 2006

  • I am the original author of this article. After some positive feedback I decide to keep it here. This article cannot be part of the Dirac equation

itself because of the potential to be expanded extensively. Three are only two formalisms of the Dirac equation using geometric algebra and both have the characteristic of being matrix free and therefore the standard approach can be considered only as an instance in some matrix representation Cabrer7 21:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not at all clear why this isn't just an unusual way of writing Cl(3,1) algebra. And specifically to the Dirac equation, it's not clear what the math suggests about the physical theory. What good is a "matrix-free" formulation if you have to introduce an arbitrary spin axis? If you mean that a four-component Dirac spinor is only a projection of something larger (eight components, perhaps?), along an axis introduced by measurement, then say so. (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Collin237

I've just found an essay by someone who independently discovered this "doubling problem" and found an interesting way to resolve it. He suggests that the other four components can be a neutrino. Running further with this idea, could the spin axis be a W boson? (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Collin237

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Talk:Dirac equation in the algebra of physical space"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA