Talk:Dirac algebra

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[gamma matrices#The fifth "gamma" matrix|here]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

looks like a redundant page.

I think that merging this with Dirac matrix is probably appropriate. Peeter.joot (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the whole of the second section and copied it verbatim to Gamma matrices (same as Dirac matrix and would suggest that this page could be deleted Selfstudier (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it as a stub. I have plans about fleshing it out that would be too much to put in Gamma matrices. (That one could move here though if and when this becomes good.) YohanN7 (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The algebra and the matrices are not the same thing. And Dirac algebra is potentially at odds with Gamma matrices (or at least has the scope to generate confusion) in this regard. In particular, the latter gives the real Clifford algebra Cℓ_1,3(R) as what is generated by the matrices (which is true for the if the scalars are taken as the real numbers, even when the matrix entries are complex, but false for if the scalars are taken as the complex numbers). What is important is that there is evidently an algebra called the Dirac algebra and this (which, I guess, is Cℓ₄(C)) and this definition of the abstract algebra should not be lost. — Quondum 13:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's good arguments for keeping the articles separate. Then whether Cℓ_1,3(R) or Cℓ_3,1(R) gives the gamma matrices is a matter of which convention is adopted for the Lorentz group, O(3;1) or O(1;3). If you pick up a text at random, then Murphy's law guarantees that it uses "the other" convention. B t w, I'm not going to do anything with this article in the near future. Maybe in a couple of weeks. YohanN7 (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Gamma matrices naturally uses "the other" convention compared to Representation theory of the Lorentz group. Sigh... There is a need to have a central separate article on stuff of this sort. The problem manifests itself everywhere where it possibly could (by Murphy's law again). Lie algebras are the prime examples, followed by the Lorentz metric. YohanN7 (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]