Understanding the Mistake in Dirac's Hamiltonian for Field Quantization

In summary, the conversation discusses the incorrect Hamiltonian obtained when quantizing the Dirac field using the same procedure as the Klein Gordon field. This Hamiltonian is not bounded from below and allows for infinite energy production. The reason for this is that the Dirac field involves anticommutators instead of commutators, which leads to the violation of the Pauli exclusion principle. This shows the importance of considering the spin-statistics theorem and quantizing half-integer fields as fermions.
  • #1
Silviu
624
11
Hello! I read that if we apply the exactly same procedure for Dirac theory as we did for Klein Gordon, in quantizing the field, we obtain this hamiltonian: ##H=\int{\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\sum(E_pa_p^{s\dagger}a_p^s-E_pb_p^{s\dagger}b_p^s)}## and this is wrong as by applying the creation operator ##b^\dagger## you can lower the energy indefinitely. I am not sure I understand why, as at the same time, ##a^\dagger## should rise the energy by the same amount (in the end this hamiltonian wouldn't change the energy at all). So can someone explain to me how this is working? Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The thing is that this Hamiltonian is not bounded from below...You can have configurations in which you cannot be bounded from below: you can keep producing particles that are described by the [itex]v[/itex] spinor without wanting to create particles that are described by the [itex]u[/itex].
An example, let's say you have initiallly some state [itex]|0>[/itex]... you add a [itex]b_{sp}^\dagger[/itex] to get another state: [itex]b_{sp}^\dagger |0>[/itex]... you keep doing that thing and you end up with something that looks like this:
[itex] \Big( b_{sp}^\dagger\Big)^n|0>[/itex]...
The |0> state had higher energy than the b|0> and the b|0> had higher energy than the bb|0> and so on... increasing the [itex]n[/itex] you keep going to lower energies.
It should be obvious that the KG procedure wouldn't work since it involves commutators instead of anticommutators, and lacks the Pauli exclusion principle (you can as I wrote have several particles in the same state without a problem).
 
  • #3
ChrisVer said:
The thing is that this Hamiltonian is not bounded from below...You can have configurations in which you cannot be bounded from below: you can keep producing particles that are described by the [itex]v[/itex] spinor without wanting to create particles that are described by the [itex]u[/itex].
An example, let's say you have initiallly some state [itex]|0>[/itex]... you add a [itex]b_{sp}^\dagger[/itex] to get another state: [itex]b_{sp}^\dagger |0>[/itex]... you keep doing that thing and you end up with something that looks like this:
[itex] \Big( b_{sp}^\dagger\Big)^n|0>[/itex]...
The |0> state had higher energy than the b|0> and the b|0> had higher energy than the bb|0> and so on... increasing the [itex]n[/itex] you keep going to lower energies.
It should be obvious that the KG procedure wouldn't work since it involves commutators instead of anticommutators, and lacks the Pauli exclusion principle (you can as I wrote have several particles in the same state without a problem).
Thank you for your answer! I understand physically why it doesn't work and I get your argument. But mathematically, when you apply H to ##|0>##, aren't both ##a^\dagger## and ##b^\dagger## going to act on it? Like they appear in H, so how can you suppress one of them?
 
  • #4
If you apply ##H## to ##|0\rangle## you get ##0## as it should be. The point is what happens when you take

##H \left(b^\dagger_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{p}}\right)^n |0\rangle ~.##

The term with the ##a##'s in ##H## still gives 0, but the second terms with the ##b##'s will give something like ##-nE_\mathrm{p} \left(b^\dagger_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{p}}\right)^n |0\rangle##, so by applying enough ## b^\dagger_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{p}} ## to ##|0\rangle## you can reach an eigenstate of ##H## with arbitrary low eigenvalue.
 
  • #5
You must consider that Dirac particles are fermions. That's why there's an additional minus sign in the 2nd term when doing the normal ordering, and that makes ##\hat{H}## bounded from below as it must be. It's an example of the spin-statistics theorem: half-integer fields are necessarily to be quantized as fermions, i.e., with anti-commutator relations.
 

1. What is Dirac's Hamiltonian for field quantization?

Dirac's Hamiltonian for field quantization is a mathematical formulation that describes the dynamics of quantum fields, which are fundamental entities in quantum field theory. It is based on the principles of quantum mechanics and special relativity, and is used to understand the behavior of particles at a small scale.

2. What is the mistake in Dirac's Hamiltonian for field quantization?

The mistake in Dirac's Hamiltonian for field quantization is that it does not take into account the anticommuting nature of fermionic fields, which are particles that follow the rules of Fermi-Dirac statistics. This results in incorrect predictions for the behavior of these particles.

3. How was the mistake in Dirac's Hamiltonian discovered?

The mistake in Dirac's Hamiltonian was discovered by Paul Dirac himself in 1933. He realized that his formulation did not match the observed behavior of fermion particles, which led him to develop a new version of the Hamiltonian that accounted for the anticommuting nature of fermionic fields.

4. What is the significance of understanding the mistake in Dirac's Hamiltonian?

Understanding the mistake in Dirac's Hamiltonian is crucial for accurate predictions in quantum field theory, particularly for fermion particles. It also highlights the importance of carefully considering the mathematical formulations used in scientific theories and constantly refining them to match empirical observations.

5. How has the understanding of Dirac's mistake impacted modern physics?

The understanding of Dirac's mistake has had a significant impact on modern physics. It has led to the development of more accurate and sophisticated theories, such as quantum electrodynamics, that can correctly describe the behavior of particles at a small scale. It has also highlighted the need for rigorous mathematical formulations in physics and the importance of constantly questioning and refining our understanding of the universe.

Similar threads

Replies
24
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
23
Views
704
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
804
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
45
Views
3K
Back
Top