Recovering Fermion States in New Formalism?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter acegikmoqsuwy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fermion States
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the recovery of fermion states in quantum field theory (QFT) using creation and annihilation operators. The participants explore the mathematical definitions of these operators, specifically the commutation and anti-commutation relations for bosons and fermions. A key point of confusion arises regarding the correct application of these relations in deriving the vacuum expectation values, particularly the presence of a plus/minus sign in the results. The resolution highlights a misplacement of the sign in the derivation process.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum field theory (QFT) principles
  • Familiarity with creation and annihilation operators
  • Knowledge of commutation and anti-commutation relations
  • Basic mathematical skills in handling delta functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the mathematical foundations of quantum field theory
  • Learn about the implications of commutation and anti-commutation relations in QFT
  • Explore the role of vacuum states in quantum mechanics
  • Investigate the differences between bosonic and fermionic statistics
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in theoretical physics, particularly those focusing on quantum field theory and particle physics, will benefit from this discussion.

acegikmoqsuwy
Messages
41
Reaction score
4
Hi, I just started a book on QFT and one of the first things that was done was switch from labeling states with their individual particles and instead label states by the number of particles in each momentum eigenstate.

In addition, some "algebras" (not sure if they qualify by the mathematical definition) were defined for creation and annihilation operators as follows:

For creation and annihilation operators for states with definite momenta p and q (working in 3 dimensions), it was defined that $$[a_p,a_q^{\dagger}]=\delta^{(3)}(p-q);\quad [a_p,a_q]=0;\quad [a_p^{\dagger},a_q^{\dagger}]=0$$ for bosons and $$\{a_p,a^{\dagger}_q\}=\delta^{(3)}(p-q);\quad \{a_p,a_q\}=0;\quad \{a_p^{\dagger},a_q^{\dagger}\}=0$$ for fermions, where the square brackets and curly braces denote commutator and anti-commutator, respectively.

The book proceeds to (reverting back to the old notation of denoting each particle in a state individually, I suppose) state that $$\langle p'q'|qp\rangle = \langle 0|a_{p'}a_{q'}a_q^{\dagger}a_p^{\dagger}|0\rangle=\delta^{(3)}(p'-p)\delta^{(3)}(q'-q)\pm\delta^{(3)}(p'-q)\delta^{(3)}(q'-p).$$ On the RHS, the positive sign is taken for bosons and the negative sign for fermions.

I believe the first of these equalities, but for some reason I keep getting a plus instead of a plus/minus on the RHS. Could anyone explain what is wrong with my derivation?

For ease of typing, I let p' = w, q' = x, q = y, p = z and I use a's and b's (with the appropriate subscripts) for the creation and annihilation operators, respectively.

Then we wish to compute $$\langle 0|a_wa_xb_yb_z|0\rangle.$$ By simply applying the commutator and anti-commutator relations, we find $$a_wa_xb_y=a_w(b_ya_x\pm\delta^{(3)}(x-y))=a_wb_ya_x\pm\delta^{(3)}(x-y)a_w.$$ Then $$a_wa_xb_yb_z=a_wb_ya_xb_z\pm\delta^{(3)}(x-y)a_wb_z=a_wb_y(b_za_x\pm\delta^{(3)}(x-z))\pm\delta^{(3)}(x-y)(b_za_w\pm\delta^{(3)}(w-z)).$$

Since we want to compute the result when this expression is sandwiched in between the vacuum state, we can ignore the terms that have an annihilation as the rightmost operator (since those will hit the vacuum state to produce zero). This leaves us with $$\pm\delta^{(3)}(x-z)a_wb_y+\delta^{(3)}(x-y)\delta^{(3)}(w-z)=\pm\delta^{(3)}(x-z)(b_ya_w\pm\delta^{(3)}(w-y))+\delta^{(3)}(x-y)\delta^{(3)}(w-z).$$

Once again, we may remove the terms that will annihilate the vacuum state, leaving us with $$\delta^{(3)}(x-z)\delta^{(3)}(w-y)+\delta^{(3)}(x-y)\delta^{(3)}(w-z).$$ Exactly what I wanted, but with + instead of +/-. What's wrong with my logic?

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
acegikmoqsuwy said:
By simply applying the commutator and anti-commutator relations, we find $$a_wa_xb_y=a_w(b_ya_x\pm\delta^{(3)}(x-y))=a_wb_ya_x\pm\delta^{(3)}(x-y)a_w.$$

You have the ##\pm## on the wrong term:

$$a_wa_xb_y=a_w(\pm b_ya_x + \delta^{(3)}(x-y))$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: acegikmoqsuwy
stevendaryl said:
You have the ##\pm## on the wrong term:

$$a_wa_xb_y=a_w(\pm b_ya_x + \delta^{(3)}(x-y))$$

OMG. Whoops. Haha, thank you, I spent the last four hours trying to figure this thing out!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K