3
$\begingroup$

Using the "Dirac Prescription", we can preserve the format of a differential equation in its QM form. If we define the canonical variables s.t. they have the same commutation relations times $i$ as the Poisson brackets, Heisenberg and Hamiltons equations will have the same form.

This gives us a very simple way to quantise a boson field: Just set the commutation relations in the right way, and Heisberg's equation will just be the wave equation. From this point everything will follow: Heisenberg equation will be Lorentz invariant if the Lagrangian is, the Noether current is conserved in the QM version of the theory. Birds will sing.

my question is: What about the Dirac field?

Since we are defining the anti-commutator instead of the commutator, the same logic do not apply. Anti-commutator cannot (as far as I can tell) act as a derivative on a formal series like the commutator.

So why are we justified in quantising the Dirac Field like that?

(If you can, I would appreciate justifications that don't have anything to do with Feynman integrals)

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

TL;DR: The same logic still applies to Grassmann-odd variables with pertinent sign factors.

  1. The Dirac prescription $\{\cdot,\cdot\}_{PB}\to [\cdot,\cdot]/i\hbar$ in principle also work for supervariables (up to higher-order quantum corrections, cf. the deformation quantization paradigm). The relevant (graded) bracket structures $\{\cdot,\cdot\}_{PB}$ and $[\cdot,\cdot]$ are a super-Poisson bracket and a supercommutator, respectively.

  2. The Schrödinger representation$^1$
    $$ \hat{q}~=~q , \qquad \hat{p}~=~\frac{\hbar}{i}\frac{\partial_R}{\partial q}~=~(-1)^{|q|}\frac{\hbar}{i}\frac{\partial_L}{\partial q}, \qquad[\hat{q},\hat{p}]~=~i\hbar{\bf 1},\tag{1}$$ also works for supervariables & supercommutators.

  3. For further details, see e.g. this, this & this related Phys.SE posts.

--

$^1$ Here the subscript $R$ & $L$ denote left & right derivatives, and $|q|$ denotes the Grassmann-parity of $q$. NB: Apart from the explicitly written sign factor in eq. (1), there may be additional sign factors in accordance with the Koszul sign rule/convention, stemming from permuting Grassmann-odd objects.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for your answer! I have read it multiple times, but still cannot understand how this might solve the problem. 1. To get Dirac's equation, I never have to assume that the field is a Grassmann-valued-field. 2. In addition to that, I can write Classical Hamiltonians that give Heisenberg equation =! Hamilton equation (for example, $H=P$, or $H=P_1P_2$). Could you help? $\endgroup$ – Yotam Vaknin Feb 5 at 20:49
  • $\begingroup$ 1. This is essentially asked here. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Feb 5 at 22:03

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.