A Quantized Dirac field calculations

Nod
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone!

I'm having a problem with calculating the fermionic propagator for the quantized Dirac field as in the attached pdf. The step that puzzles me is the one performed at 5.27 to get 5.28. Why can I take outside (iγ⋅∂+m) if the second term in 5.27 has (iγ⋅∂-m)? And why there's a difference of the D(x-y) and D(y-x)?
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
Since ##p## is an integration variable, in the second term in (5.27) you can replace ##p## with ##-p##. (More precisely, introduce a new variable ##p'=-p## and then remove the prime since it is a dummy variable.) With a little extra work, that should resolve your first question. The answer to the second question should be obvious from (5.29).
 
A more interesting comment on that page of Tong lectures is that the anticommutation relation does not violate causality because the fermion field is not an observable, while bilinear observables commute (not anticommute). That's an important lesson to those who like to interpret fields as "fundamental" objects.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Nod
Demystifier said:
Since ##p## is an integration variable, in the second term in (5.27) you can replace ##p## with ##-p##. (More precisely, introduce a new variable ##p'=-p## and then remove the prime since it is a dummy variable.) With a little extra work, that should resolve your first question. The answer to the second question should be obvious from (5.29).

I also thought like this, but still I have doubts:
If I replace ##p## with ##-p##, then instead of
##\displaystyle{\not} p = γ_μ p^μ = γ_0 p^0 +γ_i p^i##
I'll have
##\displaystyle{\not}p = γ_μ p^μ = γ_0 p^0 -γ_i p^i##.
But the last equation is not equal to ##-\displaystyle{\not}p## , because for that also the energy part ##γ_0 p^0## must change the sign!
 
Nod said:
Hi everyone!

I'm having a problem with calculating the fermionic propagator for the quantized Dirac field as in the attached pdf. The step that puzzles me is the one performed at 5.27 to get 5.28. Why can I take outside (iγ⋅∂+m) if the second term in 5.27 has (iγ⋅∂-m)? And why there's a difference of the D(x-y) and D(y-x)?

I think it's pretty straightforward:

D(x-y) = \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{2E_p} e^{-i p \cdot(x-y)}

So: (i \displaystyle{\not} \partial + m) D(x-y) = \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{2E_p} (+\displaystyle{\not} p + m) e^{-i p \cdot(x-y)}

D(y-x) = \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{2E_p} e^{-i p \cdot(y-x)} = \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{2E_p} e^{+i p \cdot(x-y)}

So: (i \displaystyle{\not} \partial + m) D(y-x) = \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{2E_p} (- \displaystyle{\not} p + m) e^{-i p \cdot(x-y)}

Subtract the two and you get:

(i \displaystyle{\not} \partial + m) D(x-y) - (i \displaystyle{\not} \partial + m) D(y-x)
= \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{2E_p} ((+ \displaystyle{\not} p + m) e^{-i p \cdot(x-y)} - (- \displaystyle{\not} p + m) e^{-i p \cdot(x-y)})

You have to remember that \partial acts on x, not y, and that i \displaystyle{\not}\partial e^{\mp i p \cdot (x-y)} = \pm \displaystyle{\not}p e^{-i p \cdot (x-y)}
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier, Nod and vanhees71
stevendaryl said:
I think it's pretty straightforward:

D(x-y) = \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{2E_p} e^{-i p \cdot(x-y)}

So: (i \displaystyle{\not} \partial + m) D(x-y) = \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{2E_p} (+\displaystyle{\not} p + m) e^{-i p \cdot(x-y)}

D(y-x) = \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{2E_p} e^{-i p \cdot(y-x)} = \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{2E_p} e^{+i p \cdot(x-y)}

So: (i \displaystyle{\not} \partial + m) D(y-x) = \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{2E_p} (- \displaystyle{\not} p + m) e^{-i p \cdot(x-y)}

Subtract the two and you get:

(i \displaystyle{\not} \partial + m) D(x-y) - (i \displaystyle{\not} \partial + m) D(y-x)
= \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{2E_p} ((+ \displaystyle{\not} p + m) e^{-i p \cdot(x-y)} - (- \displaystyle{\not} p + m) e^{-i p \cdot(x-y)})

You have to remember that \partial acts on x, not y, and that i \displaystyle{\not}\partial e^{\mp i p \cdot (x-y)} = \pm \displaystyle{\not}p e^{-i p \cdot (x-y)}

Thank you for explanation! Now I get where the signs come from :)
 
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