2
$\begingroup$

You can get a vector field from a pair of spinor fields with $A_\mu(x)=\psi(x) \gamma_\mu \overline{\psi}(x)$. Using this fact could you define a space-time vector in terms of Grasman numbers?

Say you had 16 Grassmann numbers and their conjugates. If you defined a coordinate:

$$ x_\mu \equiv \Theta ^\alpha \Gamma^{\alpha\beta}_\mu \overline{\Theta}^\beta\tag{1}$$

And then fields depended on this variable. $\phi(x)$. Could you get a consistent field theory? You would still have $[x_\mu,x_\nu]=0$ but the only difference I can see is that no function of $x$ could have powers greater than 16.

How would this effect physics? It would be the same as normal physics except for the strange rule:

$$|x|^{17}=0\tag{2}$$

Or in other words the coefficients of the fields $\phi(x)$ would be zero after the 17th term. Would this be disastrous?! You wouldn't be able to have functions like $e^{-x^2}$ as they would terminate after the 17th term. Unless you might define a coordinate $y$ as:

$$ x_\mu \equiv e^{-|y|^2}y_\mu\tag{3}$$

and take the $y$ as the space-time coordinates.

But on the other hand there are stranger algebras such as non-commutative algebra.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Interesting question.. you can definitely create a a mapping to the complexes and the contraction of a GV with a spinor, $\theta_\alpha \psi^\alpha$. So, in that sense, yea, but I see what you're saying.. $\endgroup$ – InertialObserver Jul 16 '18 at 22:48
  • $\begingroup$ Interesting background : motls.blogspot.com/2011/11/celebrating-grassmann-numbers.html $\endgroup$ – user198207 Jul 16 '18 at 22:49
0
$\begingroup$

Besides the problem with the 17th power, the first problem is that the soul of a supernumber [like one of OP's $x$-variables] is an indeterminate, i.e. a placeholder. Unlike a body indeterminate, it is not possible to assign a number with a value to a soul. In supermathematics a value can only be achieved by integrating out Grassmann-odd indeterminates. It does not make sense to measure a soul-valued output in an actual physical experiment, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ But when you have fields such as $\phi(x)$ the $x^n$ are kind of placeholders for the coefficients of the expansion of $\phi$. And a wavefunction of $\phi$ doesn't contain $x$ at all: $\Psi[\phi]$. So it calls into question how vital it is than $x$ are real numbers. Also, if this were the case how would non-commutative geometry work? $\endgroup$ – zooby Jul 17 '18 at 14:31
  • $\begingroup$ I updated the answer. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Jul 17 '18 at 14:48

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.