Delta function for grassmann numbers?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of the Dirac delta function to Grassmann numbers, specifically questioning the validity of the claim that if \(\psi\) is a Grassmann variable, then \(\delta(\psi) = \psi\). The integral properties of Grassmann numbers are explored, revealing contradictions in the assumptions made about the delta function's behavior in this context. The participants reference Warren Siegel's work, particularly the integral properties of Grassmann variables, and express confusion over the implications of anti-commutativity in these integrals.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Grassmann algebra and Grassmann numbers
  • Familiarity with Dirac delta function properties
  • Knowledge of integral calculus involving non-commutative variables
  • Exposure to advanced theoretical physics literature, particularly on quantum field theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Grassmann numbers in detail
  • Examine the role of the Dirac delta function in quantum field theory
  • Learn about anti-commuting variables and their implications in integrals
  • Read Warren Siegel's "Fields" for deeper insights into Grassmann integration
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, mathematicians specializing in algebra, and anyone researching the mathematical foundations of quantum field theory and Grassmann variables.

pellman
Messages
683
Reaction score
6
Claim: if [tex]\psi[/tex] is a variable grassmann number, then [tex]\delta(\psi)=\psi[/tex] is a Dirac delta function for integrals over [tex]\psi[/tex].

I'm not seeing this.

A general function of a grassmann number can be written [tex]f(\psi)=a+b\psi[/tex] because anti-commutativity requires [tex]\psi^2=0[/tex]. According to the wikipedia article (which doesn't elaborate on why), integrals satisfy

[tex]\int 1 d\psi=0[/tex]
[tex]\int \psi d\psi=1[/tex]

Ok. So let's check.

[tex]\int\delta(\psi-\psi')f(\psi)d\psi[/tex]
[tex]=\int(\psi-\psi')f(\psi)d\psi[/tex]
[tex]=\int(\psi-\psi')(a+b\psi)d\psi[/tex]
[tex]=a\int \psi d\psi + 0 -a\psi'\int d\psi-b\psi'\int\psi d\psi[/tex]
[tex]=a - 0 -b\psi'[/tex]
[tex]=f(-\psi')[/tex]
[tex]\neq f(\psi')[/tex]

Are one of my assumptions wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The definition of [itex]\delta[/itex] is [itex]\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \delta(x) f(x) \, dx = f(0)[/itex].

Does that change of variable make sense for such integrals? Does it make sense for f?
 
Hurkyl said:
The definition of [itex]\delta[/itex] is [itex]\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \delta(x) f(x) \, dx = f(0)[/itex].

Does that change of variable make sense for such integrals? Does it make sense for f?

I don't know, Hurkyl. I'm not even sure what integration itself means here. I am just following the steps in a formal sort of way. Warren Siegel on page 48 of Fields has that [tex]\int d\psi'(\psi'-\psi)f(\psi')=f(\psi)[/tex] (the prime-unprimed reverse of what I have above.) But I get [tex]f(-\psi)[/tex] .

Never mind if we can call it the delta function. Siegel himself puts "anti-commuting delta function" in quotes.
 
I remember trying to read through that book; I stopped after finding that section extremely off-putting. :frown:

Anyways, one thing Siegel says in that section is if we write [itex]f(\psi) = a + b \psi[/itex], then a and b aren't necessarily complex scalars -- they can be commuting numbers or anticommuting numbers or whatever.


Assuming that we really do have
[tex]\int d\psi (a + b \psi) = b[/tex]
whenever a and b don't involve psi, then if I take special care not to pass any variable through another I get

[tex]\int d\psi' (\psi' - \psi) f(\psi') = -\psi b + \int d\psi' \psi' a[/tex]

which can be rearranged to

[tex]= f(\psi) - \{\psi, b\} + \int d\psi' [\psi', a][/tex]

of course, it can be rearranged into other things -- such as

[tex]= f(-\psi) - [\psi, b] + \int d\psi' [\psi', a][/tex]
 
Last edited:
I think I'm with you about that section. I'll just let it go and press on.

Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K