Quantizing the conjugate operator to adjoint operator

geoduck
Messages
257
Reaction score
2
If you have the product of two Grassman numbers C=AB, and take the conjugate, should it be C*=A*B*, or C*=B*A*?

The general rule for operators, whether they are Grassman operators (like the Fermion field operator) or the Bose field operator, I think is (AB)^dagger=B^dagger A^dagger.

This seems to suggest C* should be defined as B*A* for Grassman numbers, so when you quantize to Grassman operators, you get the right definition. Is this right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
By the convention used in physics (Henneaux &Teitelboim's book), involution on a Grassmann algebra follows the quantum prescription:

(AB)^* = B^* A^*
 
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...
Back
Top