6
$\begingroup$

I am trying to understand the Hermiticity of the (massless) Dirac operator in both (flat) Minkowski space and Euclidean space.

Let us define the Dirac operator as $D\!\!\!/=\gamma^\mu D_\mu$, where $D_\mu = \partial_\mu-igA_\mu$, where in general $A_\mu$ is a non-Abelian gauge field. For completeness, they us assume the gauge fields are members of SU(2), and we are working in the Weyl representation for $\gamma$'s).

I have read in a number of sources on Lattice QCD that in Euclidean space $D\!\!\!/^\dagger =-D\!\!\!/$ , however I wish to show this.

Generally $D\!\!\!/=\gamma^0(\partial_0-igA_0)+\gamma^i (\partial_i-igA_i)$.

Then noting that $A_\mu^\dagger=A_\mu$, $\gamma_\mu^\dagger=\gamma_\mu$:

$D\!\!\!/^\dagger=(\partial_0^\dagger+igA_0)\gamma^0+ (\partial_i^\dagger+igA_i)\gamma^i $. Obviously for this to be true, $\partial_\mu^\dagger=-\partial_\mu$, but why? My understanding was that $\partial_\mu$ really represents $\mathbf{I}_{2x2} \partial_\mu$ for SU(2).

I am then further interested in understanding if in Minkowski space the Dirac operator is Hermitian, anti-Hermitian, or none of the above.

Similar to above, working in the (+,-,-,-) metric, noting in this case $\gamma_0^\dagger=\gamma_0$ and $\gamma_i^\dagger=-\gamma_i$,

$D\!\!\!/=\gamma^0(\partial_0-igA_0)-\gamma^i(\partial_i-igA_i) $,

so

$D\!\!\!/^\dagger=(\partial_0^\dagger+igA_0)\gamma^0 -(\partial_i^\dagger+igA_i)(-\gamma^i)=(-\partial_0+igA_0)\gamma^0 -(-\partial_i+igA_i)(-\gamma^i)=-\big((\partial_0-igA_0)\gamma^0+(\partial^i-igA_i)\gamma^i \big)\neq -D\!\!\!/ ~~\text{or}~~D\!\!\!/ $

Edit After a helpful comment, I see that $\partial_\mu^\dagger=-\partial_\mu$, however I believe I made a mistake in my original Minkowski space derivation, and I don't think it is non-Hermitian generally. Can anyone clarify this?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Hint: yes, $\partial^\dagger=-\partial$. One way to see this is that $\hat p=-i\partial$, and $\hat p$ is self-adjoint, which means that $(-i\partial)=(-i\partial)^\dagger=+i\partial^\dagger$. Or put it another way, check the definition of $\dagger$: $$ \langle f,\partial g\rangle=\int f\partial g=-\int \partial f\ g=-\langle \partial f,g\rangle $$ where I used integration by parts. We usually say that $i\partial$ is hermitian instead of saying that $\partial$ is anti-hermitian, but these are obvioulsy equivalent. You'll hear the former more often though.

With this, I believe you can easily prove that $iD\!\!\!/\ $ is hermitian. For that you'll need to use the fact that the gamma matrices are self-adjoint (meaning $\bar\gamma^\mu=\gamma^\mu$, not $\gamma^{\mu\dagger}=\gamma^\mu$, which is false). If you need more details say so and I'll elaborate.

EDIT

As $iD=i\partial+gA$ is the sum of two terms, it suffices to prove the hermicity properties of both of them independently. I believe you know how to deal with the second term: $$ g\gamma^\mu A_\mu $$ is self-adjoint because $\bar\gamma^\mu=\gamma^\mu$.

You can prove that $i\not\partial$ is hermitian by proving that so is $i\bar\psi\not\partial\psi$. This is easier because $$ (i\bar\psi \not\partial \psi)^\dagger=\overline{i\bar\psi\not\partial\psi}=-i\bar\psi \bar{ \not\partial}\psi $$ so you've got to prove $\bar{\not\partial}=-\not\partial$ instead of $\not\partial^\dagger=-\not\partial$. Now, $$ \bar{\not\partial}=\overline{\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu}=\bar\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu^\dagger=-\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu=-\not\partial $$ where I used $\bar\gamma=\gamma$ and $\partial^\dagger=-\partial$.

I hope its more clear now. You should be able to fill in the details.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your response, this makes sense for the spatial parts. For Euclidean space-time this makes sense that $\partial_\mu^\dagger=-\partial_\mu$ because the time component is put on equal footing as the spatial. However for Minkowski space-time, is it still true that $\partial_\mu^\dagger=-\partial_\mu$? It would seem to be the case as the Hamiltonian is the generator of time translation, and this (if I remember correctly) is at least self-adjoint for the Schrodinger equation. I am mostly interested for more general field theories, like Yang-Mills theory and QCD. $\endgroup$ – AltaSkiier Mar 24 '16 at 0:26
  • $\begingroup$ I see this well now, however I believe I had a mistake in my algebra previously, and have it does not appear the Minkowski space Dirac operator is non-Hermitian. Could you comment on this? Maybe I have a misunderstanding somewhere. $\endgroup$ – AltaSkiier Mar 24 '16 at 12:36

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.