Skip to main content

Timeline for Exact Definition of Dirac Operator

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

12 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jan 11, 2015 at 7:46 vote accept Jjm
Jan 9, 2015 at 18:27 answer added José Figueroa-O'Farrill timeline score: 11
Jan 9, 2015 at 18:24 answer added Carlo Beenakker timeline score: 11
Jan 9, 2015 at 18:16 comment added Liviu Nicolaescu Have a look at Chapter 11 of these notes www3.nd.edu/~lnicolae/Lectures.pdf
Jan 9, 2015 at 18:03 comment added Bombyx mori @Jjm: I do not understand. What kind of generalization are you looking for?
Jan 9, 2015 at 17:50 comment added Jjm @CarloBeenakker The definition of Wikipedia is clear, but (perhaps I should have included it in the question, sorry) since the most natural setting seems to be the spin bundles, it would be nice to approach the question in this specific setting, so that the further generalisation and simplification of a Dirac operator (because the formal definition is very simple) has its own natural meaning.
Jan 9, 2015 at 17:43 comment added Qiaochu Yuan There are a number of references that will answer this question, for example Lawson-Michelson, Berline-Getzler-Vergne...
Jan 9, 2015 at 17:28 comment added Bombyx mori Is this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_analysis relevant to you? I suspect this might be what you see on the physics side.
Jan 9, 2015 at 17:24 history edited John Pardon CC BY-SA 3.0
added 82 characters in body
Jan 9, 2015 at 17:08 comment added Carlo Beenakker concerning you last question: Bohr asked Dirac, and this was the answer: “What are you working on Mr. Dirac?” --- “I’m trying to take the square root of something” (that something being the Schrodinger equation)
Jan 9, 2015 at 17:06 comment added Carlo Beenakker perhaps it would help if you would indicate in what respect the Wikipedia entry is unclear/insufficient? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_operator
Jan 9, 2015 at 17:01 history asked Jjm CC BY-SA 3.0