Second functional derivative of fermion action

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on calculating the second functional derivative of the fermion action, specifically the expression for the propagator \( G_{kl}(x,y) \). The action is defined as \( S = \int \mathrm{d}^4 z \; \bar\psi_i(z) \, (\mathrm{i} {\not{\!\partial}} - m)_{ij} \, \psi_j(z) \). The user encounters difficulties with the anticommuting properties of Grassmann variables, leading to discrepancies in the results of the left-hand side and right-hand side calculations of the functional derivative. The discussion highlights the importance of correctly applying the properties of delta functions and functional derivatives in quantum field theory.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Dirac spinors and their indices
  • Familiarity with functional derivatives in quantum field theory
  • Knowledge of Grassmann algebra and anticommuting variables
  • Proficiency in manipulating delta functions and their properties
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Grassmann variables in quantum field theory
  • Learn about the derivation and application of functional derivatives
  • Explore the role of delta functions in field theory calculations
  • Investigate integration techniques involving delta functions and derivatives
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, particularly those specializing in quantum field theory, as well as graduate students working on fermionic actions and propagators.

Ravendark
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


[/B]
Consider the following action:
$$\begin{align}S = \int \mathrm{d}^4 z \; \bar\psi_i(z) \, (\mathrm{i} {\not{\!\partial}} - m)_{ij} \, \psi_j(z)\end{align}$$
where ##\psi_i## is a Dirac spinor with Dirac index ##i## (summation convention for repeated indices). Now I would like to calculate the (inverse) propagator ##G_{kl}(x,y)##, i.e., the second functional derivative of the action:
$$\begin{align}G_{kl}(x,y) = \frac{\delta^2 S}{\delta \psi_l(y) \delta \bar\psi_k(x)}\end{align}$$
My actual problem deals with the anticommuting of Grassmann quantities. Since the derivatives are Grassmann, I should find (is this correct at all? It is quote from the lecture notes I'm using)
$$\begin{align}\frac{\delta^2 S}{\delta \psi_l(y) \delta \bar\psi_k(x)} = - \frac{\delta^2 S}{\delta \bar\psi_k(x) \delta \psi_l(y)} \; .\end{align}$$
Unfortunately, my calculation yields something different.

2. Conventions

Integral: ##\displaystyle \int_z \equiv \int \mathrm{d}^4 z##
Functional derivative: ##\; \dfrac{\delta \psi_i(x)}{\delta \psi_j(y)} = \delta_{ij} \, \delta^{(4)}(x-y) = \dfrac{\delta \bar\psi_i(x)}{\delta \bar\psi_j(y)}##

The Attempt at a Solution



Left hand side:
$$\begin{align}
\frac{\delta^2 S}{\delta \psi_l(y) \delta \bar\psi_k(x)} &= \frac{\delta}{\delta \psi_l(y)} \int_z \, \delta_{ik} \, \delta^{(4)}(z-x) \, (\mathrm{i} {\not{\!\partial}} - m)_{ij} \, \psi_j(z) \\ &= \frac{\delta}{\delta \psi_l(y)} \, (\mathrm{i} {\not{\!\partial}} - m)_{kj} \, \psi_j(x) \\ &= (\mathrm{i} {\not{\!\partial}} - m)_{kj} \, \delta_{jl} \, \delta^{(4)}(x-y) \\ &= (\mathrm{i} {\not{\!\partial}} - m)_{kl} \, \delta^{(4)}(x-y)
\end{align}$$
Looks good so far (?), now the next part...

Right hand side:
$$\begin{align}
- \frac{\delta^2 S}{\delta \bar\psi_k(x) \delta \psi_l(y)} &= \frac{\delta}{\delta \bar\psi_k(x)} \int_z \, \bar\psi_i(z) \, (\mathrm{i} {\not{\!\partial}} - m)_{ij} \, \delta_{jl} \, \delta^{(4)}(z-y) \\ &= \frac{\delta}{\delta \bar\psi_k(x)} \int_z \, \bar\psi_i(z) \, (\mathrm{i} {\not{\!\partial}} - m)_{il} \, \delta^{(4)}(z-y) \\ &= \frac{\delta}{\delta \bar\psi_k(x)} \left\{ \int_z \, \bar\psi_i(z) \, \mathrm{i} \, \gamma^\mu_{il} \, \partial_\mu \, \delta^{(4)}(z-y) - \int_z \, \bar\psi_i(z) \, m_{il} \, \delta^{(4)}(z-y) \right\} \\ &= \frac{\delta}{\delta \bar\psi_k(x)} \left\{ - \int_z \, (\partial_\mu \bar\psi_i(z)) \, \mathrm{i} \, \gamma^\mu_{il} \, \delta^{(4)}(z-y) - \bar\psi_i(y) \, m_{il} \right\} \\ &= \frac{\delta}{\delta \bar\psi_k(x)} \bigl\{ - (\partial_\mu \psi_i(y)) \, \mathrm{i} \, \gamma^\mu_{il} - \bar\psi_i(y) \, m_{il} \bigr\} \\ &= -\delta_{ik} \, \partial_\mu \, \delta^{(4)}(y-x) \, \mathrm{i} \, \gamma^\mu_{il} - \delta_{ik} \, \delta^{(4)}(y-x) \, m_{il} \\ &= (-\mathrm{i} {\not{\!\partial}} - m)_{kl} \, \delta^{(4)}(y-x)
\end{align}$$As you can see, there is an additional minus sign in front of the derivative part...and I have no idea how to "remove" it. Can someone give me a hint please?

EDIT:
I noticed right now that the arguments of the delta functions are still swapped. I can fix the mass part by using that the delta function is even, i.e., ##m_{kl} \, \delta^{(4)}(y-x) = m_{kl} \, \delta^{(4)}(x-y)##. But the derivative part confuses me a bit because I never dealt with a derivative of a delta function in such a way.Best Regards,
Ravendark
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You don't use integration by parts to transfer the spacetime derivative onto PsiBar since <br /> \; \dfrac{\delta \psi_i(x)}{\delta \psi_j(y)} = \delta_{ij} \, \delta^{(4)}(x-y) = \dfrac{\delta \bar\psi_i(x)}{\delta \bar\psi_j(y)}<br /> you have the choice over which delta function you integrate first<br /> \frac{\delta}{\delta \bar\psi_k(x)} \int_z \, \bar\psi_i(z) \, (\mathrm{i} {\not{\!\partial}} - m)_{il} \, \delta^{(4)}(z-y)=\int_z \, \delta^{(4)}(z-x) \, (\mathrm{i} {\not{\!\partial}} - m)_{kl} \, \delta^{(4)}(z-y)

So integrating over the left delta function will give you the desired result
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ravendark
sgd37 said:
You don't use integration by parts to transfer the spacetime derivative onto PsiBar since <br /> \; \dfrac{\delta \psi_i(x)}{\delta \psi_j(y)} = \delta_{ij} \, \delta^{(4)}(x-y) = \dfrac{\delta \bar\psi_i(x)}{\delta \bar\psi_j(y)}<br /> you have the choice over which delta function you integrate first<br /> \frac{\delta}{\delta \bar\psi_k(x)} \int_z \, \bar\psi_i(z) \, (\mathrm{i} {\not{\!\partial}} - m)_{il} \, \delta^{(4)}(z-y)=\int_z \, \delta^{(4)}(z-x) \, (\mathrm{i} {\not{\!\partial}} - m)_{kl} \, \delta^{(4)}(z-y)

So integrating over the left delta function will give you the desired result
Right...instead of transfer the derivative to ##\bar\psi## I can perform the derivative directly since I know how the derivative w.r.t. ##\bar\psi## looks like.

But why is it "forbidden" to use partial integration ((11) to (12) in my first post) at this point (apart from the fact that this yields a wrong result)?
 
Forgive me what I should have said is you don't have to transfer the space-time derivative. You are free to do so
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ravendark
sgd37 said:
Forgive me what I should have said is you don't have to transfer the space-time derivative. You are free to do so
Thank you very much, I got it...I totally forgot, that there exists an identity for the derivative of the delta function: ##\partial_\mu \delta^{(4)}(y-x)=-\partial_\mu \delta^{(4)}(x-y)##.
 
I'd be careful here because the RHS gives \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}}\delta^4(x-y) whilst the LHS gives you \frac{\partial}{\partial y^{\mu}}\delta^4(y-x) if you set t=x-y and use the identity you gave above you can see that \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}}\delta^4(x-y)=\frac{\partial}{\partial y^{\mu}}\delta^4(y-x) so this wouldn't get rid of your minus sign. The reason why you find these inequalities is because on the RHS you're integrating over a delta function whilst on the LHS you're integrating over the derivative of a delta function. If you are consistent on both sides you get the right answer
 
sgd37 said:
I'd be careful here because the RHS gives \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}}\delta^4(x-y) whilst the LHS gives you \frac{\partial}{\partial y^{\mu}}\delta^4(y-x) if you set t=x-y and use the identity you gave above you can see that \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}}\delta^4(x-y)=\frac{\partial}{\partial y^{\mu}}\delta^4(y-x) so this wouldn't get rid of your minus sign.
Mhh, it seems you're right...

sgd37 said:
The reason why you find these inequalities is because on the RHS you're integrating over a delta function whilst on the LHS you're integrating over the derivative of a delta function.
Now I'm a bit confused...about which RHS/LHS are you talking about?

sgd37 said:
If you are consistent on both sides you get the right answer
You mean consistent on which argument ##\partial_\mu## actually acts?
 

Similar threads

Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
2K