Why Do String Theory and Fermions Require Different Treatments?

Click For Summary
String theory treats bosons and fermions differently due to their distinct properties, particularly in how their actions and potentials are formulated. Fermions require anticommuting dynamical variables to ensure that their quantum states adhere to the Pauli exclusion principle, which states that no two identical fermions can occupy the same quantum state. This is represented in quantum mechanics by antisymmetric wavefunctions, while in quantum field theory, fermionic fields are defined to anticommute, thus naturally enforcing the correct exchange symmetry. The use of anticommuting variables in string theory reflects the application of two-dimensional quantum field theory rather than a unique characteristic of string theory itself. Understanding these differences is crucial for comprehending the fundamental nature of particles in theoretical physics.
moriheru
Messages
273
Reaction score
17
This is a stupid question (good that I ask). String theory treats bosons and fermions in different ways e.g fermion potential are differ from boson potentials,actions differ and so on...
My question is simply : why?
Yes I know fermions and bosons are different groups of particles (integer and non-integer spin) and have many differences, but how are these incoperated in the action or potential.
Specifically why does one need anticomuting dynamical variables for fermions?
Thanks for any clarifications.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Using anticommuting objects to represent fermions is a characteristic of quantum field theory rather than string theory. As you say, bosons and fermions have certain different properties and the important one here is the observation that no two identical fermions are ever seen in the same quantum state. For example, in the ground state of helium, the electrons always have opposite spin, If we found a helium atom with both electrons with the same spin, it would always be in an excited state, where the electrons were in different orbitals.

In quantum mechanics, we account for this by using an antisymmetric wavefunction for the state describing two identical fermions. Say we are in some position basis and we label the fermions as 1,2, then we can write:

$$\Psi(x_1,x_2;1,2) = \psi(x_1;1)\psi(x_2;2) - \psi(x_2;1)\psi(x_1;2).$$

If we consider an operation where we now place fermion 2 at the point ##x_1## and fermion 1 at the point ##x_2##, our new wavefunction is

$$\Psi(x_2,x_1;1,2) = - \Psi(x_1,x_2;1,2).$$

This is also called the exchange symmetry for fermions. In this case, we find that it is impossible to find the two fermions at the same point in space: ##\Psi(x,x;1,2)=0## because of the antisymmetry of the wavefunction.

In quantum field theory, quantum states are replaced by quantum fields ##\hat{\psi}##. These are operators that act on the vacuum state to produce one particle states:

$$\hat{\psi}_1(x_1) |0\rangle = |x_1,1\rangle.$$

If we demand that the quantum fields describing fermions anticommute, ##\hat{\psi}_1(x_1)\hat{\psi}_2(x_2)=-\hat{\psi}_2(x_2)\hat{\psi}_1(x_1)##, then we guarantee that the multiparticle states that the fields create will satisfy the correct exchange symmetry for fermions. We no longer have to force it by hand since it is a fundamental property of the theory.

When you see anticommuting variables being used for fermions in the description of the string worldsheet, that is because the tools of two-dimensional quantum field theory are used. The treatment of fermions at that level is not something unique to string theory.
 
  • Like
Likes moriheru
"Supernovae evidence for foundational change to cosmological models" https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.15143 The paper claims: We compare the standard homogeneous cosmological model, i.e., spatially flat ΛCDM, and the timescape cosmology which invokes backreaction of inhomogeneities. Timescape, while statistically homogeneous and isotropic, departs from average Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker evolution, and replaces dark energy by kinetic gravitational energy and its gradients, in explaining...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K