A Question about commutator involving fermions and Pauli matrices

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the commutation relation involving fermions and Pauli matrices, specifically whether the expression [\bar{\lambda}_A \sigma^i \lambda_A, \bar{\lambda_B} \sigma^j \lambda_B] equals zero or results in a term involving the Levi-Civita symbol. The argument presented suggests that since \bar{\lambda}_A \sigma^i \lambda_A is a sum that results in a bosonic quantity, the commutator should indeed be zero. However, the opposing view implies that the calculation could yield a non-zero result based on the properties of fermionic operators. The discussion emphasizes the need to perform the calculation using specific identities related to commutators and anticommutators. Ultimately, the resolution hinges on the correct application of these mathematical identities.
Gleeson
Messages
30
Reaction score
4
Suppose ##\lambda_A## and ##\bar{\lambda}_A## are fermions (A goes from 1 to N) and ##\{ \lambda_{A \alpha}, \bar{\lambda}_B^{\beta}\} = \delta_{AB}\delta_{\alpha}^{\beta}##.

Let ##\sigma^i## denote the Pauli matrices.

Does it follow that ##[\bar{\lambda}_A \sigma^i \lambda_A, \bar{\lambda_B} \sigma^j \lambda_B] = 0##? Or should it be ##2i \epsilon_{ijk}\bar{\lambda}_C \sigma^k \lambda_C##?

I think it should be the former. ##\bar{\lambda_A} \sigma^i \lambda_A## is a sum over A of a (2 entry row, times a 2x2 matrix, times a 2 entry column), and so is no longer a matrix. And overall it is bosonic. So I think the commutator should be zero. If this is not the case, then why not?

In case it is not clear, ##\bar{\lambda}_A \sigma^i \lambda_A = \bar{\lambda}_A^{\alpha}\sigma^{i \beta}_{\alpha}\lambda_{A \beta}##. Repeated indices are summed.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Just do the calculation! You only have to repeatedly use the identities,
$$[\hat{A} \hat{B},\hat{C}]=\hat{A} \{\hat{B},\hat{C} \} - \{\hat{A},\hat{C} \} \hat{B}$$
and
$$[\hat{A},\hat{B} \hat{C}]=\hat{B} \{\hat{A},\hat{C} \} - \{\hat{A},\hat{B}\} \hat{C}.$$
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...