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.

I'm trying to learn how to do a many-body path integral for both fermions and bosons, and I'm stuck. I'm following Altland and Simons - Condensed Matter Field Theory, chapter 4. On page 167, equation 4.27 is

\begin{equation} Z = \int \prod_{n=1}^N d(\bar{\psi}^n,\psi^n) e^{-\delta \sum_{n=0}^{N-1}[\delta^{-1}(\bar{\psi}^n - \bar{\psi}^{n+1}).\psi^n + H(\bar{\psi}^{n+1},\psi^n)]} \end{equation}

(I've set $\mu=0$ from the equation in the book). The limit $N \rightarrow \infty$ is then taken which involves various things, but the part I don't understand is this:

\begin{equation} \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \delta^{-1}(\bar{\psi}^n - \bar{\psi}^{n+1})) \rightarrow -\partial_\tau \bar{\psi} \end{equation}

which is fine, but the next is

\begin{equation} Z = \int D(\bar{\psi},\psi) e^{-S[\bar{\psi},\psi]}, \hspace{4mm} S[\bar{\psi},\psi] = \int_0^\beta [\bar{\psi} \partial_\tau \psi + H(\bar{\psi},\psi)] \end{equation}

My question is how do you get from $-\partial_\tau \bar{\psi}$, which is $-\partial_\tau \bar{\psi} \psi$ in $Z$, to $+\bar{\psi} \partial_\tau \psi$? If this was only for fermions, I would guess that the Grassmann variable $\psi$ and the derivative $\partial_\tau$ anticommute which is where the minus sign comes from. But the book says it's valid for bosons as well as fermions; for bosons, the $\psi$ is a complex number, and so I wouldn't expect the minus sign.

Any help would be much appreciated!

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 6 down vote accepted

Jane, $\partial_\tau$ is clearly a derivative with respect to a bosonic time $\tau$, so it commutes with everything else (except for functions of $\tau$ itself, with which it has a nonzero commutator), rather than anticommutes. Only if both objects have a fermionic character (if both of them are Grassmann-odd), they anticommute with one another (or they have an anticommutator that can be evaluated).

There is no sign error in the formulae, however. You asked a good question: how do you get from $$-\partial_\tau \bar\psi \psi$$ to $$+\bar\psi\partial_\tau \psi$$ One needs a bit of patience to answer this question. Note that in the two expressions, a different variable is differentiated. In the first one, it's $\bar\psi$ that is differentiated; in the second one, it's $\psi$.

You can't just move derivatives around. Even for bosonic functions, $uv'$ is something else than $u'v$, isn't it?

So the two expressions are not "obviously equal", not even up to a sign, and to convert one to the other, you must carefully integrate by parts. Note that $$\partial_\tau (\bar\psi \psi) = \partial_\tau\bar\psi \psi + \bar\psi\partial_\tau\psi. $$ This "Leibniz rule" proceeded just like for the derivative of products of bosonic factors because I had to bubble $\partial_\tau$ through the $\psi$'s, and $\partial_\tau$ is a bosonic object. If I were writing down a Leibniz rule for a Grassmannian derivative, I would have to change the sign everytime the derivative would bubble through a Grassmann-odd factor.

But here we deal with bosonic $\tau$-derivatives so the Leibniz rule is just like it has always been. So it implies that up to a total derivative - namely the left-hand side $\partial_\tau (\bar\psi \psi)$ that integrates to zero over the periodic Euclidean time - the two terms on the right hand side are opposite to one another. That's where the minus sign came from.

share|improve this answer
    
Except I'm fairly sure that Grassman numbers form a differential graded algebra and so obey a graded Leibniz rule... –  genneth Feb 11 '11 at 21:43
1  
No, @genneth, you're confused. The operator $d$ on the Wikipedia page you linked is a Grassmann-odd operator (that's why it squares to zero, see the rule (i) on that page) but the operator $\partial_\tau$ in Jane's question is an ordinary Grassmann-even derivative. The factor $(-1)^{|a|}$ in front of the second term in (ii) is, more generally, $(-1)^{|a|\cdot |d|}$, which proves that $d$ is Grassmann-odd over there, but not here. –  Luboš Motl Feb 11 '11 at 21:45
2  
@lubos: I stand corrected. You are completely right :-) +1 –  genneth Feb 11 '11 at 21:46
    
Thanks for the fast peace. ;-) +1 –  Luboš Motl Feb 11 '11 at 21:48
    
Thank you! Excellent answer! –  Jane Feb 12 '11 at 9:26
show 2 more comments

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.