Understanding the Mistake in Dirac's Hamiltonian for Field Quantization

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Silviu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dirac Hamiltonian
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the issues related to Dirac's Hamiltonian in the context of field quantization, particularly focusing on the implications of using creation and annihilation operators for fermionic fields. Participants explore the mathematical and physical consequences of the Hamiltonian's structure and its boundedness from below.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that applying the same quantization procedure used for the Klein-Gordon field to Dirac theory leads to a Hamiltonian that is problematic, as it allows for indefinite lowering of energy through the application of the creation operator for the b spinor.
  • Another participant elaborates that the Hamiltonian is not bounded from below, providing an example of how repeatedly applying the b spinor creation operator can lead to states of lower and lower energy, thus violating stability.
  • A participant questions how both creation operators can act on the vacuum state if the Hamiltonian contains terms for both, seeking clarification on the suppression of one operator's effect.
  • In response, it is pointed out that while the a operators yield zero when applied to the vacuum state, the b operators can produce states with arbitrarily low energy, highlighting the problematic nature of the Hamiltonian.
  • Another participant emphasizes that Dirac particles are fermions, which introduces an additional minus sign in the Hamiltonian when normal ordering is applied, suggesting that this is essential for ensuring the Hamiltonian is bounded from below, in accordance with the spin-statistics theorem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the Hamiltonian's structure, with some agreeing on the necessity of fermionic treatment while others focus on the problematic aspects of energy lowering. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to rectify the issues identified.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the application of the Klein-Gordon procedure to fermionic fields, particularly regarding the treatment of creation and annihilation operators and the implications for energy states. There are unresolved mathematical steps related to the normal ordering and the treatment of the Hamiltonian.

Silviu
Messages
612
Reaction score
11
Hello! I read that if we apply the exactly same procedure for Dirac theory as we did for Klein Gordon, in quantizing the field, we obtain this hamiltonian: ##H=\int{\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\sum(E_pa_p^{s\dagger}a_p^s-E_pb_p^{s\dagger}b_p^s)}## and this is wrong as by applying the creation operator ##b^\dagger## you can lower the energy indefinitely. I am not sure I understand why, as at the same time, ##a^\dagger## should rise the energy by the same amount (in the end this hamiltonian wouldn't change the energy at all). So can someone explain to me how this is working? Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The thing is that this Hamiltonian is not bounded from below...You can have configurations in which you cannot be bounded from below: you can keep producing particles that are described by the v spinor without wanting to create particles that are described by the u.
An example, let's say you have initiallly some state |0>... you add a b_{sp}^\dagger to get another state: b_{sp}^\dagger |0>... you keep doing that thing and you end up with something that looks like this:
\Big( b_{sp}^\dagger\Big)^n|0>...
The |0> state had higher energy than the b|0> and the b|0> had higher energy than the bb|0> and so on... increasing the n you keep going to lower energies.
It should be obvious that the KG procedure wouldn't work since it involves commutators instead of anticommutators, and lacks the Pauli exclusion principle (you can as I wrote have several particles in the same state without a problem).
 
ChrisVer said:
The thing is that this Hamiltonian is not bounded from below...You can have configurations in which you cannot be bounded from below: you can keep producing particles that are described by the v spinor without wanting to create particles that are described by the u.
An example, let's say you have initiallly some state |0>... you add a b_{sp}^\dagger to get another state: b_{sp}^\dagger |0>... you keep doing that thing and you end up with something that looks like this:
\Big( b_{sp}^\dagger\Big)^n|0>...
The |0> state had higher energy than the b|0> and the b|0> had higher energy than the bb|0> and so on... increasing the n you keep going to lower energies.
It should be obvious that the KG procedure wouldn't work since it involves commutators instead of anticommutators, and lacks the Pauli exclusion principle (you can as I wrote have several particles in the same state without a problem).
Thank you for your answer! I understand physically why it doesn't work and I get your argument. But mathematically, when you apply H to ##|0>##, aren't both ##a^\dagger## and ##b^\dagger## going to act on it? Like they appear in H, so how can you suppress one of them?
 
If you apply ##H## to ##|0\rangle## you get ##0## as it should be. The point is what happens when you take

##H \left(b^\dagger_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{p}}\right)^n |0\rangle ~.##

The term with the ##a##'s in ##H## still gives 0, but the second terms with the ##b##'s will give something like ##-nE_\mathrm{p} \left(b^\dagger_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{p}}\right)^n |0\rangle##, so by applying enough ## b^\dagger_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{p}} ## to ##|0\rangle## you can reach an eigenstate of ##H## with arbitrary low eigenvalue.
 
You must consider that Dirac particles are fermions. That's why there's an additional minus sign in the 2nd term when doing the normal ordering, and that makes ##\hat{H}## bounded from below as it must be. It's an example of the spin-statistics theorem: half-integer fields are necessarily to be quantized as fermions, i.e., with anti-commutator relations.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K