0
$\begingroup$

Let us consider the following term

$$\bar\psi(p_1)M\psi(p_2) \bar\psi(p_3)N\psi(p_4)$$

According to Ortin's book (equation (D.65)), from the Fierz identity we would have something like

$$\bar\psi(p_1)M\psi(p_2) \bar\psi(p_3)N\psi(p_4)= -\frac12 \sum_I \bar\psi(p_1)MO_IN\psi(p_4) \ \bar\psi(p_3)O^I \psi(p_2)$$

where $O^I=\{1,\gamma^a,\gamma^{ab},\ldots\}$, and the minus arises from the fact that the spinors anticommute.

However, assuming that the anticommutation relations of, for example, a Dirac field, are (depending on notation, something like)

$$\{\psi_\alpha(p),{\bar\psi}^\beta(q)\}=(\gamma^0)_\alpha{}^\beta \delta(p-q),$$

to recover the above result, I would obtain two more extra terms which are quadratic in fermions and which arise from anticommuting $\psi(p_2)$ ($\propto\delta(p_2-p_3)$) and $\psi(p_4)$ ($\propto\delta(p_4-p_3)$) with $\bar\psi(p_3)$.

Why those terms are never considered in the literature?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

Fierz identity concerns the product of multiple $\psi_i$ as Grassmann-valued classical fields, NOT as quantum fields. The minus sign arises from the Grassmann nature of the classical fermion fields.

You can interpret it in two ways:

  • In the path integral formulation, what appear in the Langrangian are classcial fields to be path-integrated. Thus quantum anticommutation relation does not apply to the Langrangian.
  • In the canonical quantization formulation, you can regard the Fierz-rearranged Hamiltonian as the "right" Hamiltonian, similar to the "normal ordering" procedure. Thus the delta terms drop out.
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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