Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let us consider Dirac equation $$(i\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu -m)\psi =0$$ as a classical field equation. Is it possible to introduce Poisson bracket on the space of spinors $\psi$ in such a way that Dirac equation becomes Hamiltonian equation $$\dot{\psi}=\{H_D, \psi\}?$$

Of course, such bracket would be graded (super bracket), but if it exists this would explain on classical level why $\frac{1}{2}$-spinors correspond to fermions.

share|improve this question
    
I do not know what do you mean by "Poisson bracket on the space of spinors". Can you expand the bracket? –  juanrga Nov 5 '12 at 19:19
    
@juanrga I mean Hamiltonian formalism for fields: if you have Lagrangian density you can ask what is Hamiltonian density and could you rewrite Euler-Lagrange equations as Hamiltonian equations with respect to some bracket on functionals on fields. –  Sasha Nov 6 '12 at 13:49
    
I see now from your comments to Fabian that you are precisely asking for a definition of the bracket. I interpreted your question as you already had some definition and you were asking if it was possible to write the equation. –  juanrga Nov 6 '12 at 20:07

3 Answers 3

Now, I don't know what the word rigorous means, but here is a straight off the bat naive answer. Given $$ H = \int d^3 x \, \bar{\Psi}(i \gamma_i \partial_i +m)\Psi $$ from $$ \mathcal{L} = i\bar{\Psi}\gamma^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\Psi - \bar{\Psi} m \Psi \quad \text{and}\quad H = \int d^3x \, (\pi \dot{\Psi}-\mathcal{L}) $$ with $(+,-,-,-)$. Let's use the possoin bracket $$ \{A,B\} = \int d^3 x \, (\delta_{\Psi}A \, \delta_{\pi}B-\delta_{\pi}A \, \delta_{\Psi}B) $$ and let's remember that $\pi_{\Psi} = i \bar{\Psi}\gamma_0 \implies \bar{\Psi} = -i \pi \gamma_0$ so that $$ H = \int d^3x \, -i\gamma_0\pi(i\gamma_i\partial_i +m)\Psi $$ consider $$ \delta_{\pi}H = \int d^3x \, \gamma_0 (\delta_{\pi}\pi) \gamma_i \partial_i \Psi + \gamma_0\pi\gamma_i\partial_i(\delta_{\pi}\Psi) - i\gamma_0 (\delta_{\pi}\pi) m\Psi - i\gamma_0 \pi m (\delta_{\pi}\Psi) $$ $$ =\gamma_0 \gamma_i \partial_i \Psi - i\gamma_0 m \Psi $$ Then looking at $$ \{H,\Psi\} = -\gamma_0 \gamma_i \partial_i \Psi + i\gamma_0 m \Psi = \dot{\Psi} $$ God knows if this is right, but this sounds like what you are looking for.

share|improve this answer
    
Why you ignore field $\bar{\Psi}$ in the bracket? –  Sasha Nov 7 '12 at 11:10
    
@Sasha I'm not sure what you mean, in the question you were interested in $\Psi$, so I tried to work out an equation for $\dot{\Psi}$. If you mean why in the last line "I ignored $\bar{\Psi}$", it because I used line four's Hamiltonian, which uses the conjugate momentum. Is that what you are asking? –  kηives Nov 7 '12 at 14:50

In my opinion, one cannot rigorously [*] define the bracket. Suppose that you use the Dirac field equation for arriving to the ordinary Lagrangian density

$$ \mathcal{L} = c \bar{\psi} \left( i\hbar \gamma^\mu \frac{\partial}{\partial x^\mu} \right) \psi $$

This is a function of the spinor components $\psi_i$ and their adjoints $\bar{\psi_i}$. The problem begins when you try to obtain the conjugate momentum for the adjoints (the dot denotes time derivative)

$$\bar{\pi_i} = \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{\bar{\psi_i}}} = 0$$

which implies that not all the canonical variables are independent and not true 'phase-space' structure exists.

You could try to formally define Poisson brackets in the usual fashion,

$$ \{ A, B \} \equiv \sum_i \frac{\partial A}{\partial \psi_i} \frac{\partial B}{\partial \pi_i} - \frac{\partial A}{\partial \pi_i} \frac{\partial B}{\partial \psi_i} + \sum_j \frac{\partial A}{\partial \bar{\psi}_j} \frac{\partial B}{\partial \bar{\pi}_j} - \frac{\partial A}{\partial \bar{\pi}_j} \frac{\partial B}{\partial \bar{\psi}_j} $$

but note that this is only formally valid, because the variables are not all independent. The equations of motion would be written somewhat as

$$ \dot{A} \approx \{ A, \mathcal{H} \} $$

using Dirac weak equality sign, because this is a constrained dynamics. The Hamiltonian density is obtained from

$$ \mathcal{H} \approx \sum_i \pi_i \dot{\psi}_i + \sum_j \bar{\pi}_j \dot{\bar{\psi}}_j - \mathcal{L} $$

Notice that all of this is a quantum treatment. There is not classical spinor theory.

[*] I suppose that all depends on what are you trying to do.

share|improve this answer
    
Yes, this is constrained system. I'm trying to extend phase space to super space and get super Poisson bracket that would give a meaningful answer. By the way, everything you wrote is classical field theory, because your spinors are fields on space-time not operators (I look at the situation from QFT point of view, not QM). –  Sasha Nov 7 '12 at 11:20
    
@juanrga I think the canonical variables are independent. If you don't want to treat the variables independently, that's your choice, but I think they are independent since to write down the full Lagrangian you need to add the hermitian conjugate. Usually no one does, but that's their choice. –  kηives Nov 7 '12 at 21:14
1  
The true Lagrangian to use is $\mathcal{L}' = \frac{1}{2}(\mathcal{L}+\mathcal{L}^{\dagger})$ this way you won't run into a problem with the canonical momenta for either of the independent fields. –  kηives Nov 8 '12 at 0:36
    
@kηives I've tried both Lagrangians and I found that Hamiltonian is either $m\bar{\psi}\psi$ or $\tfrac{1}{2}m\bar{\psi}\psi+\mathrm{h.c.}$, being independent of any spatial derivatives of $\psi$. Is it okay for a fermion field? If I set $m=0$, I would have no Hamiltonian at all, and no evolution of the system, which seems wrong (waves should propagate properly, because Dirac equation works okay in the $m=0$ case). –  firtree Aug 18 at 23:03
    
@firtree I think you should end up with more terms then something proportional to mass only. Check my answer up above and see if that is correct and you get the same thing. –  kηives 2 days ago

It is possible to construct a Hamiltonian. In fact this is the way how Dirac initially wrote his equation. For that the time and space coordinates have to be treated differently. In the Schrödinger picture, the Hamiltonian generates the time dynamics via ($\hbar =0$) $$i \partial_t \psi = H \psi.$$ We see that we can obtain this structure from the Dirac equation by multiplying it by $\gamma^0$ (and using $\gamma_0^2=1$). With that we obtain the result $$ H = {\bf\alpha} \cdot {\bf p} + \beta m$$ where we introduced the conventional notation $\beta =\gamma^0$, $\alpha^k =\gamma^0 \gamma^k$, and $p_k = -i\partial_k$.

If you want to write this down in terms of a classical field theory, with the field $\psi$ evolving as $$\partial_t \psi({\bf r}) = \{\mathcal{H},\psi ({\bf r})\}, $$ the Hamiltonian is given by $$\mathcal{H} = \int\!d^3r \,\psi^*({\bf r})H \psi({\bf r}).$$

Edit:

I define the Poisson bracket to be $$\{ A, B\} = \int\!d^3r\left[\frac{\delta A}{\delta \psi({\bf r})}\frac{\delta B}{\delta \psi^*({\bf r})} -\frac{\delta B}{\delta \psi({\bf r})}\frac{\delta A}{\delta \psi^*({\bf r})} \right]$$ where the derivatives are functional derivatives and we have assumed (as usual) that $\psi$ and $\psi^*$ are independent variables with the defining relations $$ \frac{ \delta \Psi({\bf r})}{\delta \Psi({\bf r}')} = \frac{ \delta \Psi^*({\bf r})}{\delta \Psi^*({\bf r}')} = \delta^3({\bf r}-{\bf r}'), \quad\frac{ \delta \Psi({\bf r})}{\delta \Psi^*({\bf r}')} = \frac{ \delta \Psi^*({\bf r})}{\delta \Psi({\bf r}')} = 0.$$

share|improve this answer
1  
This is quantum picture, my question is about classical fields. –  Sasha Nov 5 '12 at 20:40
1  
Ok, corrected... –  Fabian Nov 5 '12 at 21:09
1  
Ok, now comes my question: how you define $\{\mathcal{H},\mathcal{F}\}$? For two functionals on spinors. –  Sasha Nov 5 '12 at 21:39
1  
@Fabian: your bracket cannot be correct. It does not have even the correct dimensions. –  juanrga Nov 6 '12 at 20:07
1  
@juanrga: good eye! I have fixed this. –  Fabian Nov 7 '12 at 19:51

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.