Why are spinors not observables?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Silviu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    observables Spinors
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of spinors in quantum field theory (QFT) and their classification as observables. Participants explore the implications of causality on the spin-statistics theorem, particularly focusing on the commutation relations of various fields and their observability.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why spinors are not considered observables, contrasting them with scalar fields which are deemed observables.
  • Another participant asserts that all observables must be hermitian operators, noting that scalar fields are hermitian while spinor fields are not.
  • A further contribution emphasizes that only self-adjoint operators can be classified as observables, linking this to the requirement for commutation relations among observables.
  • There is a query about the sufficiency of the commutation relation $$[\bar{\psi}(x)\psi(x),\bar{\psi}(y)\psi(y)]=0$$ for ensuring causality, with a suggestion that additional checks with other bilinear combinations may be necessary.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the classification of spinors as observables, with some asserting that their non-hermitian nature excludes them from being observables, while others question the completeness of the argument. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of the commutation relations for causality.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the definitions of observables and the specific conditions under which the commutation relations apply. The necessity of checking additional bilinear combinations for causality is also noted but not fully resolved.

Silviu
Messages
612
Reaction score
11
Hello! I am reading some QFT and it is a part about how causality implies spin-statistic theorem. In general, one needs 2 observables to commute outside the light-cone. For scalars, we have $$[\phi(x),\phi(y)]=0$$ outside the light-cone, and by using the operator form of the field you get that indeed scalars are bosons. However for spinors, we have that they don't commute, but the things that needs to commute in order to preserve causality is $$[\bar{\psi}(x)\psi(x),\bar{\psi}(y)\psi(y)]=0$$ and the author says that the spinors are not observables, hence why it is fine if they don't commute. I am not sure I understand why they are not observables. And why is the scalar field an observables? Is it because $$\phi(x)|0>=|x>$$? Also, why is $$[\bar{\psi}(x)\psi(x),\bar{\psi}(y)\psi(y)]=0$$ enough to impose causality? Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
All observables are hermitian operators. Scalar field for uncharged particles is a hermitian operator. Spinor field is not a hermitian operator. That's why!
 
Only self-adjoint operators are observables, So the commutation relation, which ensures that spacelike observables commute has to be between combinations of observables that are self-adjoint.
 
Silviu said:
Also, why is $$[\bar{\psi}(x)\psi(x),\bar{\psi}(y)\psi(y)]=0$$ enough to impose causality?
I wouldn't say that it's enough. One would also need to check similar commutators with other physically relevant bilinear combinations, such as ##\bar{\psi}(x)\gamma^{\mu}\psi(x)##. But once you checked it for ##\bar{\psi}(x)\psi(x)##, the explicit check for the other combinations should be easy.
 

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K