4
$\begingroup$

In a similar manner to how we can define Majorana fermionic operators $\gamma_j$ via $$ c_j \propto \gamma_{2j+1} + i \gamma_{2j}^\dagger, $$ where the $c$'s are fermionic creation/annahilation operators. These operators are super useful when dealing with fermionic systems. Im wondering if one can define and meaningfully use bosonic Majorana operators, i.e. $$ b_j \propto \tilde{\gamma}_{2j+1} + i \tilde{\gamma}_{2j}^\dagger, $$ where the $b$'s are bosonic creation/annahilation operators.

Is there a way to legalize these Majoranas?

$\endgroup$
4
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The analog of a Majorana fermion for bosons are the excitations of a real scalar field $\phi$ as far as I know (where $\phi^\dagger = \phi$). The reason for this is that for both of these situations the particles are their own antiparticles (ie. the field expansion is $\phi \propto u_{k} \hat{a}_{k} + u^{\ast}_{k} \hat{a}^{\dagger}_{k}$, as opposed to the non-Majorana case, where you would have some other kind of creation operator $\hat{b}^{\dagger}_{k}$) $\endgroup$ Dec 16, 2021 at 21:21
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not familiar with condensed matter Physics, so what I say is in the context of QFT. The Majorana condition can be seem as a reality condition. Indeed, when representing the Clifford algebra gamma matrices $\Gamma^\mu$ one may choose the Majorana representation. In that representation a Majorana spinor has real components. In that setting, a Majorana spinor would be the fermionic analog of a real bosonic field. $\endgroup$
    – Gold
    Dec 16, 2021 at 21:44
  • $\begingroup$ Your expression for $\gamma_j$ is not hermitian, so it is not a Majorana operator. $\endgroup$
    – Meng Cheng
    Dec 17, 2021 at 2:13
  • $\begingroup$ @MengCheng you are right, there is a typo I meant $\gamma \leftrightarrow c$ and so on. $\endgroup$ Dec 17, 2021 at 10:32

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

The correspondingly defined objects for bosons are the position operator $x=(a+a^\dagger)/2$ and the momentum operator $p=(a-a^\dagger)/2i$, respectively.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Cant you also define those for fermions? Also, say you create a boson at position $x$, it's state then is defined by $a_x^\dagger|0\rangle$. Now with your definition, if we measure it's position $\langle x\rangle \stackrel{?}={} \langle (a_x+a_x^\dagger)/2\rangle =1/2$. I know Im butchering your answer a bit, but what does that mean? Shouldn't $\langle x\rangle=x$ for this state? $\endgroup$ Dec 19, 2021 at 23:47
  • $\begingroup$ @FriendlyLagrangian This is for a single harmonic oscillator, as presented in any QM textbook where creation/annihilation operators are introduced. $a_x$ is a completely different thing, in an entirely different space. In essence, $x$ and $p$ are the canonically conjugate operators. For a single light mode, these could e.g. correspond to the sine and cosine part of the wave. $\endgroup$ Dec 29, 2021 at 14:55

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.