Why are spinors not observables?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Silviu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    observables Spinors
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
3 replies · 2K views
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
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.