Timeline for What is a formal definition of a Fermionic quantum field?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 6, 2018 at 22:22 | comment | added | gradstudent | Also I am a bit confused about how to interprete this fact about the anti-commutator of two quantum Fermion fields being non-zero. If that is true then how do we explain equations like ``$Tr[\psi^{even}=0]$" for gauge charged quantum Fermion fields like say whats happening in the footnotes on page 30 of this paper, arxiv.org/pdf/1104.0680.pdf. | |
| Jun 6, 2018 at 22:01 | comment | added | gradstudent | Thanks for the references. But I still not sure this explains exactly what I am looking for. I guess you are referring to equations 1.8-1.11 in the Avrimidi lectures. Here what they define using this "superclassical fields" are not quantum fields as far as I can see. The so-called "infinite dimensional Grassman algebra" (not clearly defined!) in the RHS of equation 1.11 does not seem to be acting on the Hilbert space of quantum states as it should have if the fields he is talking of were Quantum Fields. What am I missing? | |
| Jun 6, 2018 at 10:07 | history | answered | Carlo Beenakker | CC BY-SA 4.0 |