What Is a C-Number in Quantum Field Theory?

AI Thread Summary
A c-number in quantum field theory typically refers to a classical number, distinguishing it from operators or spinors. The term is often associated with complex numbers but is primarily defined as a classical quantity. In discussions about spinors, which are anti-commuting, the reference to c-numbers indicates that spinors are composed of commuting numbers, not that the spinors themselves are commuting. Additionally, the term "anticommuting number" is more accurately associated with Grassmann numbers, which are used in the functional integral representation of fermionic fields. While some may refer to Grassmann numbers as c-numbers, this is not a common practice.
fliptomato
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone--I was hoping someone could give (or refer to) a textbook definition of a c-number, as used in the context of quantum field theory.

Does this refer to a commuting number? I've also read it referring to a classical quantity. classical quantity, from a not-very-reputable source. (Though are these the same?)

If the 'c' refers to commuting, when I read something like "...spinors are anti-commuting (c-numbers)." (Bailin and Love, SUSY book) Does this mean that spinors are anti-commuting objects composed of commuting numbers? (It certainly doesn't mean that the spinors themselves are commuting...)

Thanks,
Flip
 
Physics news on Phys.org
C-number usually refers to "complex" number. At least that is all I have ever seen it used as.
 
c-number is really defined as a classical number. it is not an operator or
spinor.!

anticommuting number is Grassmann number used in the functional integral
representation of fermionic field.

Often the Grassman number is not called c-number, maybe someone can call
Grassmann number as c-number.
 
TL;DR Summary: Book after Sakurai Modern Quantum Physics I am doing a comprehensive reading of sakurai and I have solved every problem from chapters I finished on my own, I will finish the book within 2 weeks and I want to delve into qft and other particle physics related topics, not from summaries but comprehensive books, I will start a graduate program related to cern in 3 months, I alreadily knew some qft but now I want to do it, hence do a good book with good problems in it first...
TLDR: is Blennow "Mathematical Methods for Physics and Engineering" a good follow-up to Altland "Mathematics for physicists"? Hello everybody, returning to physics after 30-something years, I felt the need to brush up my maths first. It took me 6 months and I'm currently more than half way through the Altland "Mathematics for physicists" book, covering the math for undergraduate studies at the right level of sophystication, most of which I howewer already knew (being an aerospace engineer)...

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top