Majorana Path Integral: Deriving VEVs of Barred/Unbarred Fields

LAHLH
Messages
405
Reaction score
2
Hi,

By analogy with scalar field case, Srednicki leads us to Z_0 (\eta)=\int \mathcal{D}\Psi \exp{\left[i\int\,\mathrm{d}^4x (\mathcal{L}_0+\eta^{T}\psi)\right]} for a Majorana field.

I was expecting something different, like maybe: Z_0 (\eta)=\int \mathcal{D}\Psi\exp{\left[i\int\,\mathrm{d}^4x (\mathcal{L}_0+\eta^{T}\psi+\eta\psi^{T})\right]} at least.

or even: Z_0 (\eta)=\int \mathcal{D}\Psi \mathcal{D}\bar{\Psi}\ \exp{\left[i\int\,\mathrm{d}^4x (\mathcal{L}_0+\bar{\eta}\psi+\eta\bar{\psi})\right]} (why a transpose on eta now and not a bar?)

I mean how would derive VEV's of a a product of barred and unbarred fields like \langle 0|T\Psi_{\alpha}(x)\bar{\Psi}_{\beta}(y)|0\rangle as he computes at the end of ch42, with the above.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Because it is the path integral for a Majorana field. The third path integral you wrote down would apply to a Dirac field. The second has no meaning. The first (and Srednicki's one) is the one that applies to a Majorana field.

In a nutshell, a Majorana field is a more "basic" object than a Dirac field. A Dirac field is the (complex) sum of two Majorana fields. There is no notion of a "barred" majorana field -- barring the Majorana field operator gives you back the same operator!
 
But there is a notion of barred for Majorana, it is just that we have the Majorana condition too: \bar{\Psi}=\Psi^{T}\mathcal{C}, and in fact in ch42 Srednicki actually calculates the VEVs of various products of Majornana barred fields etc

I know from the previous chapters that a Majorana field is more basic as you say, and a Dirac field is like two of these objects, and in some sense this is why a Majorana field is analogous to a real scalar field, whereas the Dirac is analogous to a complex scalar field. But nevertheless you can bar Majorana fields and calculate various VEV products of them, and I can't see how one would do this from such a path integral.
 
Last edited:
Could anyone say anything further about this?

Specifically I'm just wondering how one could calculate something like Srednicki's 42.19: i\langle 0|T\Psi_{\alpha}(x)\bar{\Psi}_{\beta}(y)|0\rangle =S(x-y)_{\alpha\beta}
which is for Majorna fields, from the functional integral Srednicki gives above.

thanks
 
You first compute with all psi's, and then change as many as you want to psibar's using the Majorana relation between psi and psibar. With Majorana fields (and sources), the barred fields are redundant, and therefore it is best to avoid using them.
 
I see, makes sense. Thanks alot.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top