Second functional derivative of fermion action

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the second functional derivative of a fermion action involving Dirac spinors. The original poster is attempting to derive the inverse propagator from the given action and is encountering difficulties related to the properties of Grassmann variables and the manipulation of delta functions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to compute the second functional derivative and questions the correctness of their results, particularly regarding the signs and the treatment of Grassmann derivatives.
  • Some participants suggest reconsidering the integration order of delta functions and the implications of integration by parts in this context.
  • Others raise concerns about the consistency of derivative operations on delta functions and the resulting signs in the equations.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's calculations, providing hints and clarifications about the properties of delta functions and Grassmann variables. There is a recognition of the complexity involved in the manipulations, but no explicit consensus has been reached regarding the resolution of the original poster's confusion.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of correctly applying identities related to delta functions and the implications of integrating over different variables. The original poster's calculations involve assumptions about the behavior of derivatives with respect to Grassmann variables, which are being critically examined.

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
3K