2
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to derive the closed form of the fermionic coherent state defined by the relation:

$$ f_i|\vec{\eta}\rangle = \eta_i |\vec{\eta}\rangle \tag{4.10} $$

My book (Atland and Simons, Condensed Matter Field Theory, pages 160-163 suggests that I use the state

$$ |\vec{\eta}\rangle = \exp\left[ -\sum_i \eta_i f_i^{\dagger} \right]|0 \rangle\tag{4.17} $$

where the $\eta_i$ are Grassmann numbers: $\{\eta_i,\eta_j\}=0$. I've noticed that Atland and Simons regularly use the relation:

$$ \exp\left[ -\sum_i \eta_i f_i^{\dagger} \right] = \left(1-\sum_i \eta_i f_i^{\dagger}\right) $$

(see, e.g. footnote 3 on pg 163, or the solutions to problems on pg 181). Why is this equality correct? I would think that if we have, for example, $i$ ranging from $1$ to $2$ then:

$$ \exp\left[-\eta_1 f_1^{\dagger}-\eta_2f_2^{\dagger}\right] = 1 + \partial_{\eta_1}\exp\left[...\right]\eta_1 + \partial_{\eta_2}\exp\left[...\right]\eta_2 \\ + \frac{1}{2}\partial_{\eta_1}\partial_{\eta_2}\exp\left[...\right]\eta_2\eta_1 + \frac{1}{2}\partial_{\eta_2}\partial_{\eta_1}\exp\left[...\right]\eta_1\eta_2 $$

Noticing that the last two terms are the same by anticommutation relations we find that:

$$ \exp\left[-\eta_1 f_1^{\dagger}-\eta_2f_2^{\dagger}\right] = 1 - \eta_1 f_1^{\dagger} - \eta_2 f_2^{\dagger} + \eta_1\eta_2 f_1^{\dagger}f_2^{\dagger}$$

In general, the Taylor expansion of an exponential of a linear combination of $N$ Grassmann variables should have nonzero terms up to order $N$ in the Grassmann variables? Is there a reason that Altland and Simons completely ignore the terms of order $>1$?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

The formula that Ref. 1 uses is

$$\tag{*} \exp\left(-\sum_j \eta_j a_j^{\dagger} \right) ~=~ \prod_j\exp\left( - \eta_j a_j^{\dagger} \right) ~=~\prod_j \left(1- \eta_j a_j^{\dagger}\right). $$

  1. Ref. 1 correctly applies [the Hermitian conjugate of] eq. (*) to the bra in answer (a) on p. 181. There is no mistake on p. 181.

  2. Ref. 1 does not write a sum/product over $j$ in footnote 3 on p. 163. Instead Ref. 1 is only considering a single element $i$. In particular there is no sum implied over repeated $i$ indices! Footnote 3 is meant as a proof that the definition (4.17) for a coherent state of Fermionic operators has the property (4.10). To finish the proof, the reader is afterwards supposed to multiply on both sides with the missing $\prod_{j\neq i}$ factor, which is anyway effectively a passive spectator in the calculation. The full calculation of the ket is by the way a Hermitian conjugate version of answer (a) on p. 181.

References:

  1. Altland and Simons (A&S), Condensed Matter Field Theory, 2nd edition, 2010.
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

For a univariable grassmann number $\eta_1$ it holds $\eta_1^2 = 0$ because of $ \{ \eta_1, \eta_1 \} = 0$. Hence all higher powers of this Grassmann number vanish. However, if there are multiple Grassmann numbers, linear combinations of these Grassmann numbers can be computed. It still holds $\eta_i^2 = 0$ for every $i$, but $\eta_i \eta_j \neq 0$ for $i \neq j$. You can show that if you take the $N+k$-th power of the linear combination $\sum_{i=1}^N a_i \eta_i$ for ordinary commutative numbers $a_i$ vanishes for $k > 0$ because in every term there are occuring Grassmann number squares.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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