Mega quick question: must the Lagrangian (density) be real valued?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter guest1234
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Density Lagrangian
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the hermiticity of the Lagrangian (density) in quantum field theory, exploring whether it must be real-valued or hermitian. Participants examine implications for observables and the structure of the theory, with references to specific literature and examples.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the Lagrangian must be hermitian, posing the equation \(\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}^\dagger\) as a point of inquiry.
  • Another participant references a source that suggests the Lagrangian does not need to be hermitian since it is not an observable, but expresses uncertainty about this claim.
  • A different viewpoint is introduced, stating that for theories invariant under CPT symmetry, the Lagrangian must be hermitian, although the validity of this statement is questioned.
  • Concerns are raised regarding specific terms in the Lagrangian, such as \(F^{\mu\nu}V^{\mu}V_{\mu}^{\dagger}\), which are not hermitian, leading to questions about the implications of having a non-hermitian Lagrangian.
  • It is noted that non-hermitian Lagrangians are often used for simplicity, with the understanding that additional terms are included to ensure hermiticity in the final Hamiltonian.
  • A participant mentions that the Lagrangian must be real with respect to involution and have Grassmann parity 0 when fields form a Grassmann algebra, with complex scalar fields requiring complex conjugation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of hermiticity in the Lagrangian, with some arguing it is not required while others suggest it is essential under certain conditions. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of hermiticity on the theory.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific literature and examples, but there are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of hermiticity and observables in the context of the Lagrangian.

guest1234
Messages
38
Reaction score
1
Mega quick question: must the Lagrangian (density) be hermitian?

In other words, must [itex]\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}^\dagger[/itex] always be valid?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
This is discussed at the opening chapter of "Symmetry and Its Breaking in Quantum Field Theory" By T. Fujita
 
UltrafastPED said:
This is discussed at the opening chapter of "Symmetry and Its Breaking in Quantum Field Theory" By T. Fujita
:rolleyes: Can you tell us what it says there?
 
It basically says that the Lagrangian must not be hermitian since it's not observable.
But I still have mixed feelings about it. After googling "hermicity of the Lagrangian" this popped up stating that the Lagrangian of the theory invariant under CPT symmetry must be hermitian (don't know whether the statement is invertible).
The reason why I'm asking this is that the term [itex]F^{\mu\nu}V^{\mu}V_{\mu}^{\dagger}[/itex] is not hermitian and constructing such Lagrangian with the term is impossible.
So.. what I am asking now is: what is gained (lost) in the theory if the Lagrangian is (non-)hermitian?
 
Last edited:
Often we work with a non-Hermitian Lagrangian just because it's simpler, but it's understood that tacked on at the end is the admonition "+ h.c.".

For sure, the Hamiltonian must be Hermitian, since it's an observable. Proofs of the CPT Theorem utilize this fact explicitly.
 
The Lagrangian of a field theory must be real with respect to the involution and have Grassmann parity 0, if the fields containing it form a Grassmann algebra with involution. For complex scalar fields, the involution on the associative algebra of the fields is the complex conjugation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
10K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K