0
$\begingroup$

In the page 5 of the document 'CPT Symmetry and Its Violation' by Ralf Lehnert (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/80103866.pdf), appears a discussion about how the spin-statistics theorem applies to the CPT theorem proof. It is said that for 2 spinors $\chi, \psi$, CPT transformations looks like:

$$ \bar{\chi}\psi \rightarrow -\chi^{\dagger\ T \ \dagger} \gamma^0 \psi^{\dagger\ T} = \dots = (\bar{\chi} \psi)^\dagger $$

Nevertheless, from the left hand side of the first equal symbol I derive,

$$ -\chi^{\dagger\ T \ \dagger} \gamma^0 \psi^{\dagger\ T} = (-\chi^{\dagger\ T \ \dagger} \gamma^0 \psi^{\dagger\ T})^{\dagger\ *} $$

Since a bilinear and its transpose is the same thing. Now I'm going to use introduce inside bracket the conjugation operation represented by $*$. Then,

$$ (-\chi^{\dagger\ T \ \dagger} \gamma^0 \psi^{\dagger\ T})^{\dagger\ *} = -(\chi^\dagger \gamma^0 \psi)^\dagger = -(\bar{\chi}\psi)^\dagger $$

So, my result has different sign from the one in the document. It is no conflict with the usual CPT result that says $\bar{\psi}\psi \rightarrow \bar{\psi}\psi$ since you can choose $\chi = \psi$ and due to anti-commutation of the 'bar' fields with fields you get precisely that result. Otherwise, it would be, $\bar{\psi}\psi \rightarrow -\bar{\psi}\psi$

Am I right or I'm loosing something?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

I believe you're correct. Another reference here gives the identity $$CPT: \qquad \bar{\chi}\psi \rightarrow \bar{\psi}\chi$$ which is $$ -(\bar{\chi}\psi)^\dagger = \psi^\dagger \gamma_0 \chi = \bar{\psi} \chi$$

The error in the reference you are working from is in the second-to-last equality. They have used the fermion anticommutation relation in the last equality, but ignored it in the second-to-last, writing $$-\chi^{\dagger T \dagger} \gamma^{0*} \psi^{\dagger T} = -(\psi^T \gamma^{0T} \chi^{T\dagger})^\dagger$$

But this should not have a negative sign after the equality. In fact, the whole derivation is quite circular and inconsistent, they have simply attempted to apply two transpositions inconsistently to summon a change of sign. The trick is that for Grassmannian operators, the usual identity $(AB)^T = B^T A^T$ needs to be amended to $(AB)^T = -B^T A^T$. Otherwise the following is inconsistent: \begin{align} 1)& \qquad (\chi^T \psi)^T = \chi^T \psi\\ 2)& \qquad \chi^T \psi = -\psi^T \chi\\ \implies 3)& \qquad (\chi^T \psi)^T = - \psi^T \chi = \chi^T \psi \end{align}

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer. If you like, you could take a look to my new related post physics.stackexchange.com/questions/476870/… where I try to prove CPT theorem by using what we discuss here. I'm kind of stuck $\endgroup$ – Vicky Apr 30 at 3:55
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, I think that I was wrong and I'm going to write an answer to explain it $\endgroup$ – Vicky May 1 at 13:21
0
$\begingroup$

In the text, you can see that the CPT transformation can be written as

$$ \bar{\chi}\psi \rightarrow -\chi^{\dagger\ T \ \dagger} \gamma^0 \psi^{\dagger\ T} = -(\psi^T \gamma^0 \chi^{T\ \dagger})^\dagger $$

If you go on with that expression,

$$-(\psi^T \gamma^0 \chi^{T\ \dagger}) = -(\psi^T \gamma^0 \chi^*) = -(\psi^T \gamma^0 \chi^{T\ \dagger}) = -(\chi^\dagger \gamma^0 \psi)^T $$

And,

$$ -(\chi^\dagger \gamma^0 \psi)^T = -(\psi^T \gamma^0 \chi^*) = -\psi_i(\gamma^0)_{ij}\chi^*_j = +\chi^*_j(\gamma^0)_{ji}\psi_i = -\chi^\dagger\gamma^0\psi = \bar{\chi}\psi $$

$\gamma^0_{ij} = \gamma^0_{ji}$ and since $\gamma^0_{ii} = 0$ you can use without Dirac deltas the anti-commutation between $\chi$ and $\psi$ even if $\chi = \psi$

So under CPT,

$$ \bar{\chi}\psi \rightarrow (\bar{\chi}\psi)^\dagger $$

The key is not to consider that transpose or adjoint introduces sign. It's just as simple as if $A, B$ are fermion fields, then

$$ (AB)^T = B^T A^T,\quad (AB)^\dagger = B^\dagger A^\dagger \tag{A}$$

The second one comes from the definion of adjoint operator, i.e., if ${\cal O}$ is an operator, its adjoint ${\cal O}^\dagger$ is given by

$$ \langle f|{\cal O}g \rangle = \langle {\cal O}^\dagger f|g \rangle $$

So, if ${\cal O} = AB$ you have that,

$$ \langle f|ABg \rangle = \langle {A}^\dagger f|Bg \rangle = \langle B^\dagger A^\dagger f|g \rangle $$

The first one of Eq. (A) it's now a corollary that comes from the definition of adjoint as transpose plus complex conjugation.

A last remark is that it's NOT true that $(\bar{\chi}\psi)^T = \bar{\chi}\psi$, so in general

$$ (\bar{\chi}\psi)^T \neq \bar{\chi}\psi $$

This is due to $\bar{\chi}\psi$ is not a number, it's an operator and it's not true, in general, that an operator and its transpose is the same thing. I write this because I've seen it in other post related to similar questions about transposition and adjoit of bilinears, and I think that I have already proved it to be wrong in this answer. I recommend to visit Transposition of spinors

$\endgroup$

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.