Note: See update below.
Consider the Majorana Lagrangian
L=−ψTi
where is Grassmann-valued, and where γρ∈M4(R) is the irreducible, real-valued representation of Cliff(3,1). The generalized coordinates ψa=ψa(x) and their conjugate momenta \pi _{a}\left( \mathbf{x}\right) \equiv \pi _{a}^{L}\left( \mathbf{x% }\right) =-\pi _{a}^{R}\left( \mathbf{x}\right), where
\begin{eqnarray*} \pi _{a}^{L} &\equiv &\frac{\partial _{L}\mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{\psi}^{a}% }\equiv \frac{\overrightarrow{\partial }}{\partial \dot{\psi}^{a}}\mathcal{L}% =+\mathrm{i}\left( \psi ^{\mathrm{T}}\right) _{a}=+\mathrm{i}\psi _{a}, \\ \pi _{a}^{R} &\equiv &\frac{\partial _{R}\mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{\psi}^{a}% }\equiv \mathcal{L}\frac{\overleftarrow{\partial }}{\partial \dot{\psi}^{a}}% =-\mathrm{i}\left( \psi ^{\mathrm{T}}\right) _{a}=-\mathrm{i}\psi _{a},\tag{2} \end{eqnarray*}
following answer by Qmechanic, are obviously not independent, but constrained by 0=χax≡ψa(x)+iπa(x).
\begin{eqnarray*} C_{a \mathbf{x},b \mathbf{y}} &\equiv &\left\{ \chi _{a \mathbf{x}},\chi _{b \mathbf{y}} \right\} _{\text{P}} \\ &=&\mathrm{i}\left\{ \psi _{a}\left( \mathbf{x}\right) ,\pi _{b}\left( \mathbf{y}\right) \right\} _{\text{P}}+\mathrm{i}\left\{ \pi _{a}\left( \mathbf{x}\right) ,\psi _{b}\left( \mathbf{y}\right) \right\} _{\text{P}} \\ &=&-2\mathrm{i}\delta _{ab}\delta ^{\left( 3\right) }\left( \mathbf{x}-% \mathbf{y}\right) ,\tag{4} \end{eqnarray*}
using
{F,G}P=∫d3x[δRFδψa(x)δLGδπRa(x)−δRFδπLa(x)δLGδψa(x)]≡−∫d3x[δRFδψa(x)δLGδπa(x)+δRFδπa(x)δLGδψa(x)],
following again answer by Qmechanic. The matrix Cax,by being invertible,
(C−1)ax,by=i2δabδ(3)(x−y),
implies, in the terminology of Dirac, that these constraints are second class. The Dirac bracket is thus given by
{F,G}D≡{F,G}P−∫d3x∫d3y{F,χax}P(C−1)ax,by{χby,G}P={F,G}P−i2∫d3x{F,χax}P{χax,G}P,
so that
{ψa(x),ψb(y)}D={ψa(x),ψb(y)}P−i2∫d3z{ψa(x),χcz}P{χcz,ψb(y)}P=i2∫d3z{ψa(x),πc(z)}P{πc(z),ψb(y)}P=i2∫d3zδacδ(3)(x−z)δbcδ(3)(z−y)=i2δabδ(3)(x−y).
Following the 'quantum bracket = i× Poisson bracket'-rule, the quantum bracket is thus supposedly given by
{ψa(x),ψb(y)}=−12δabδ(3)(x−y).
Can that really be correct? The minus sign looks wrong. And what about the factor of 1/2? But before turning attention to these details, perhaps I should start by asking whether I have made some conceptual errors above. Have I simply misunderstood how to go about quantizing constrained systems?
Update: Now the penny finally dropped. Almost embarrassingly, the wrong sign boils down to not having taken into account the minus sign in γ20=−14 in the calculation of the conjugate momenta. Taking proper care of this, the sign issue evaporates. (Note that in order to preserve the history of this posting, the material above has not been edited accordingly.) Thus to me only remains now the puzzlement over the factor of 1/2, see my comment below.
No comments:
Post a Comment