9

This seems to be an absurd question, but bear with me.

In quantum field theory, the Dirac fermion mass Lagrangian term reads $$ m\bar\psi \psi = m(\bar\psi_L \psi_R + \bar\psi_R \psi_L) = m(\psi_L^\dagger \gamma_0\psi_R + \psi_R^\dagger \gamma_0\psi_L) $$ Assuming this fermion mass Lagrangian term is used as the integrand (in the exponential) in functional integral formalism of Dirac-fermion-related QFT, in the following we will regard $\psi$ components as anti-commuting Grassmann variables given the anti-symmetric nature of the fermions, rather than classical commuting complex variables.

Note that $m$ is supposed to be real throughout this post. The question here is about whether the mass Lagrangian term $m\bar\psi \psi$ is real or imaginary, not about $m$ parameter itself. (Note that there could be legitimate pseudoscalar mass term as in $m\bar{\psi} i\gamma_5\psi$. But we will not discuss about pseudoscalar mass in the current post. The interested readers can see here for more details.)

However, if you look under the hood of the familiar mass term $m\bar\psi \psi$, there are some surprises lurking around. Let's look at a simple example in the Weyl basis $$ \psi = (\xi, 0, \chi, 0)^T $$ where $\xi$ and $\chi$ are real Grassmann numbers ($\xi^*= \xi$, $\chi^*= \chi$, they are not 2 component columns, we will get to the general case of complex Grassmann numbers towards the end of the post). In the Weyl basis, $(\xi, 0, 0, 0)^T$ and $(0, 0, \chi, 0)^T$ represent left ($\psi_L$) and right ($\psi_R$) handed part of the Dirac spinor, respectively.

Let's calculate the mass term: $$ m\bar\psi \psi = m(\psi_L^\dagger \gamma_0\psi_R + \psi_R^\dagger \gamma_0\psi_L) = m(\xi^*\chi + \chi^*\xi) = m(\xi\chi + \chi\xi) = 0 $$ Oops, it's identical to zero since $\xi$ and $\chi$ are anti-commuting Grassmann numbers! Note that the $\gamma_0$ matrix just flip the left-handed components to the right-handed components and vice versa in the Weyl basis.

Now, let's tweak the the trial spinor to make one of its component imaginary Grassmann (multiplying $\chi$ by an $i$) $$ \psi = (\xi, 0, i\chi, 0)^T $$ Low and behold (I will omit the $m$ parameter hereafter): $$ \bar\psi \psi = \psi_L^\dagger \gamma_0\psi_R + \psi_R^\dagger \gamma_0\psi_L = \xi^*(i\chi) + (i\chi)^*\xi = i\xi\chi - i\chi\xi = 2i\xi\chi \neq 0 $$ The mass term is non-zero.

The remarkable and weird feature is that the mass term is imaginary with an $i$!

The interested reader can try all sorts of $\psi$ configurations in any representation (Weyl basis or not), and you will end up with the same result of imaginary mass. Any efforts of building a real mass term will be a wild goose chase, since the $\psi_L^\dagger \gamma_0\psi_R$ portion will always cancel out the $\psi_R^\dagger \gamma_0\psi_L$ portion.

Let's double check whether the imaginary mass term is Hermitian: $$ (2i\xi\chi)^\dagger = -2 i\chi^*\xi^* = -2i\chi\xi = 2i\xi\chi $$ So the Hermitian property is secured.

On the other hand, a real mass term (if it existed) $$ (2\xi\chi)^\dagger = 2 \chi^*\xi^* = 2\chi\xi = -2\xi\chi $$ would be non-Hermitian.

The key point here is that the Hermitian operator is by definition $$ (AB)^\dagger = B^\dagger A^\dagger $$ Note that there is NO minus sign, even if both $A$ and $B$ are Grassmann odd. (As a side note, transpose is defined as: $(AB)^T = -B^T A^T$, if $A$ and $B$ are Grassmann valued. Note that there is a minus sign! See here.)

At the end of the day, physicists seem not troubled by the imaginary nature of the mass term as long as it's Hermitian. I have to underscore (in response to @octonion's comments) that being Hermitian and being real are two disparate notions.

You might wonder why the imaginary mass is not mentioned in the usual text books. It's because when we deal fermions, the common practice is to use complex Grassmann numbers $$ \xi = \xi_1 + i\xi_2 \\ \chi = \chi_1 + i\chi_2 $$ where $\xi_1$, $\xi_2$, $\chi_1$, and $\chi_2$ are real Grassmann numbers

And thus the mass term of $\psi = (\xi, 0, \chi, 0)^T$ is $$ \bar\psi \psi = \psi_L^\dagger \gamma_0\psi_R + \psi_R^\dagger \gamma_0\psi_L = \xi^*\chi + \chi^*\xi $$ the imaginary nature is hidden in plain sight. Only when we write out the explicit terms $$ \xi^*\chi + \chi^*\xi = (\xi_1 + i\xi_2)^*(\chi_1 + i\chi_2) + (\chi_1 + i\chi_2)^*(\xi_1 + i\xi_2) = 2i(\xi_1\chi_2 + \chi_1\xi_2) $$ the imaginary mass is manifest.


Added note in response to the wrong answer below (by @alexarvanitakis) saying that "The signs and/or presence of factors of i in fermion lagrangians is somewhat superfluous and convention dependent".

Of course, one can have a Dirac Lagrangian with no $i$. For example, one can simply changing the metric from (+, -, -, -) to (-, +, +, +), see more details here. However, using what ever convention you choose, you still end up with a imaginary mass term! This is because that each column element of the Dirac wave function is valued in complex Grassmann space. Whereas a real Grassmann valued Dirac wave function will imply zero mass.

The wrong answer further says that "For example you can work with a convention where complex conjugation does not reverse the order of a product of fermions which changes radically the appearances of factors of i".

Please note that in deriving the imaginary mass above, there is no reverse invoked for any product of fermions. So the mass term is still imaginary. The only place the complex conjugation convention in reverse of a product of fermions is relevant is the proof that the mass term is Hermitian, albeit imaginary. If one takes the wrong answer's convention, the mass term will be both non-Hermitian and imaginary!

Additionally, the wrong answer says that "You instead want to look at the Klein-Gordon equation satisfied by the fermion field...You need to correlate the sign of $m^2$ with the convention for the gamma matrices so that the above operator does not admit tachyonic-type solutions."

I am talking about $m\bar\psi \psi$ being imaginary, not $m$ being imaginary. The wrong answer's proof of $m$ being real (or $m^2$ being positive) is totally irrelevant to the question here!


More added note:

I am not talking about whether the expectation value $\langle m\bar\psi \psi\rangle$ being real. That is not the problem. What I am talking about is the Lagrangian/action in integrand before path integral, while the expectation value is after path integral. Actually, even-though the Lagrangian mass term is imaginary, the path integral expectation value $\langle m\bar\psi \psi\rangle$ IS real. I am not contesting about the expectation value.

J.G.
  • 24,837
MadMax
  • 3,737
  • 2
    Hi @MadMax: This question is about classical (super-commuting) variables. The QM & QFT tags do not seem to apply. – Qmechanic Feb 06 '20 at 19:33
  • The (super-commuting) variables appears as the integrand in the exponential of functional integral formalism. – MadMax Feb 06 '20 at 19:38
  • It's not clear to me whether you actually have a question, so I'm replying in a comment. I don't think it's fair to call the mass imaginary. As you showed, $(\bar{\psi}\psi)^*=\bar{\psi}\psi$ and thus the mass parameter $m$ can be taken real without spoiling the overall reality of the action. – octonion Feb 08 '20 at 23:24
  • 3
    Hi, we've noticed that you have made a large number of minor edits to this post. Please be mindful that every edit bumps the post in the "active" tab of the site and try to make your edits substantial. If you foresee improving this post repeatedly, maybe collect several edits and make them in one go instead of submitting them individually. – Chris Jan 26 '21 at 06:06
  • 2
    @MadMax I'm trying to understand the question... You're asking whether the term $m\bar\psi\psi$ in $L$ is real or imaginary, in the context of the integrand of a path integral, right? You know that the components of $\psi$ and $\bar\psi$ are not numbers (real or complex), and products of those components are not numbers either. They're elements of an abstract vector space with a special kind of product. Do you have a basis-independent definition of complex conjugation in mind? Or are you asking what other people really mean when they say the Lagrangian must be "real"? – Chiral Anomaly Jan 28 '21 at 23:40
  • By "components of ψ and ψ¯ are not numbers (real or complex)", do you mean Grassmann numbers are not numbers? – MadMax Jan 28 '21 at 23:44
  • 2
    @MadMax Yes, that's what I meant. I should have said it like this: the components of the matrices $\psi$ and $\bar\psi$ are elements of a Grassmann algebra, not numbers. (They can be multiplied by complex numbers, of course.) – Chiral Anomaly Jan 29 '21 at 00:02
  • So what is the difference between "Grassmann numbers" and "Grassmann algebra"? Or you just mean there is no such thing as "Grassmann numbers" at all? – MadMax Jan 29 '21 at 00:04
  • 1
    @MadMax "Grassmann number" is just the name for an element (or specifically a generator) of a Grassmann algebra. I searched briefly for a good concise online overview and didn't find one, but here's the rough idea: you have a list of things $\psi_k$ called "generators," some of which may be denoted $\bar\psi_k$ instead, but they're all linearly independent. They can be added, mutliplied by complex numbers, and multiplied by each other, and the generators anticommute with each other. [part 1 of 2...] – Chiral Anomaly Jan 29 '21 at 00:56
  • 1
    @MadMax [...part 2 of 2] When we pass from the path integral formulation to the operators-on-Hilbert-space formulation, they become operators (as do the fields that were ordinary real-valued fields in the path integral), and that's where their adjoints are defined -- but they still don't have complex conjugates, at least not in any basis-independent sense. I'm not sure if any of this is helpful, I'm just throwing some things out there to try to help identify the issue. – Chiral Anomaly Jan 29 '21 at 00:56
  • Thanks for clarifying the difference between "Grassmann number" and "Grassmann algebra". Since you are an expert on the subject matter, please shed some light on other definitions. If a "Grassmann number" $\theta$ has the property $\theta^* = \theta$, then $(i\theta)^* = -i\theta$. Two questions. First of all, how do you "have a basis-independent definition of complex conjugation"? Secondly, how do you describe the different properties of the above two Grassmann numbers $\theta$ and $i\theta$? – MadMax Jan 29 '21 at 04:35
  • @MadMax In a vector space over the real numbers, the vector's components depend on which basis is used. A vector that has all positive components in one basis may have all negative components in another basis, and neither basis is more natural than the other. There's no natural basis-independent notion of "positive vector." In a vector space over the complex numbers, a vector may have purely real components in one basis and purely imaginary components in another basis, and neither choice is more natural than the other. There's no natural basis-independent notion of "real vector." [1 of 3...] – Chiral Anomaly Jan 29 '21 at 15:13
  • @MadMax [2 of 3] The generators of a Grassmann algebra span a vector space $G$ over the complex numbers. In this context, a spinor $\psi$ has components $\psi_k$, and each of these components is itself a vector in the vector space $G$. I would describe the properties $\theta^=\theta$ and $(i\theta)^=-i\theta$ as: $\theta$ has real components in that basis for $G$. Sometimes authors say that the $m\bar\psi\psi$ term in the Lagrangian must be "real," but that's careless, and explaining what they might mean would take another series of long comments. (I can think of a few possibilities.) – Chiral Anomaly Jan 29 '21 at 15:14
  • @MadMax [3 of 3] When we're talking about a Lagrangian in the integrand of a path integral, we don't need (or have) any natural basis-independent definition of "real" when fermions are involved. We do need the path integral to have a property called reflection positivity. (That's one of the things authors might mean by "real Lagrangian.") If we switch to the operators-on-Hilbert-space formulation, then we still don't need (or have) a definition of "real" that is independent of the choice of Hilbert-space representation. What we do need/have is the notion of self-adjoint/hermitian. – Chiral Anomaly Jan 29 '21 at 15:14
  • @ChiralAnomaly, thank you for the explanation! I would challenge anybody to construct a "real" $m\bar\psi\psi$ in any "real" Grassmann basis of his/her own choice. If one choose a "complex" basis like $\xi = \xi_1 + i\xi_2$, the imaginary nature of $m\bar\psi\psi$ will be hidden, and this point has been already expounded in the main text. Note that, as explained in the main text, being "real" and being "Hermitian" may not be the same. Again, I am NOT challenging $m\bar\psi\psi$ being Hermitian. – MadMax Jan 29 '21 at 17:38
  • The Dirac spinor is not a real representation of $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$. So $\xi^{\ast}\neq\xi$. The real representation is known as the Majorana fermion. And so the mass term does not vanish. – Valac Jun 30 '22 at 14:32
  • Please read carefully, for non-vanishing mass term the Weyl basis in the post $\psi = (\xi, 0, i\chi, 0)^T$ is a complex representation, not real representation. – MadMax Jun 30 '22 at 14:35
  • @MadMax Can you just write down your second equation again? Why is $\xi^{\ast}=\xi$? – Valac Jun 30 '22 at 14:39
  • I hope you can add tags for your equations because it's really hard to raise questions. For the "Hermitian property", please check my new updated answer. The involution (aka complex conjugate) of the Grassmann algebra is defined in that way. $(zw)^{\ast}=w^{\ast}z^{\ast}$. You always flip the order under complex conjugation. There's nothing Hermitian here. – Valac Jun 30 '22 at 15:34

3 Answers3

9

The signs and/or presence of factors of $i$ in fermion lagrangians is somewhat superfluous and convention dependent. (For example you can work with a convention where complex conjugation does not reverse the order of a product of fermions which changes radically the appearances of factors of $i$. Most of the time this is not a convention you want to use though.)

You instead want to look at the Klein-Gordon equation satisfied by the fermion field. Assume your fermion EOM is $$ (\gamma^\mu{\partial_\mu}+m)\psi=0 $$ Then it follows that $$ (\gamma^\mu{\partial_\mu}+m)^2\psi=0\implies \left(\frac{1}{2}\{\gamma^\mu,\gamma^\nu\}\partial_\mu\partial_\nu +m^2\right) \psi=0 $$ so the equation of motion for the fermion implies also a Klein-Gordon type equation for each of the components of $\psi$. You need to correlate the sign of $m^2$ with the convention for the gamma matrices so that the above operator does not admit tachyonic-type solutions.

  • This answer is totally wrong! See added notes in my question. – MadMax Jan 26 '21 at 04:30
  • 1
    No, my answer looks fine. Naive reality of the kinetic term in the lagrangian doesn't matter; it only matters whether solutions propagate within the lightcone and whether the operator is formally self-adjoint and has a nice spectrum of (real) eigenvalues etc. –  Jan 26 '21 at 22:43
  • $m$ is real for sure. But that is NOT what I am talking about. I am talking about $m\bar\psi \psi$. – MadMax Jan 26 '21 at 22:46
5

I am going to consider the problem in $d=0+1$ dimensions to simplify the notation. For higher $d$ the discussion is identical except that you also include momentum modes, which are not relevant to the question.

Take a free Dirac fermion. The most general lagrangian is $$ L=i\psi^\dagger\dot\psi+m\psi^\dagger\psi $$ This lagrangian is hermitian iff $m\in\mathbb R$.

The associated hamiltonian, obtained by the usual (constrained) Legendre transform, is $$ H=m\psi^\dagger\psi $$ This is an hermitian operator, naturally.

The quantum theory is obtained by canonical quantization, giving the (again, constrained) Dirac-Poisson brackets $$ \{\psi,\psi\}=\{\psi^\dagger,\psi^\dagger\}=0,\qquad\{\psi,\psi^\dagger\}=1 $$

The Hilbert space is two-dimensional: $$ |0\rangle\quad\text{and}\quad\psi^\dagger|0\rangle $$ where the vacuum $|0\rangle$ is defined as $$ \psi|0\rangle=0 $$ It is trivial to compute the action of the Hamiltonian on these states, with the result $$ m\psi^\dagger\psi=\begin{pmatrix}0&0\\0&m\end{pmatrix} $$ (with respect to the basis $|0\rangle$, $\psi^\dagger|0\rangle$).

We learn several lessons:

  • In this basis, the mass term is real and hermitian.

  • In other bases, the mass term is still hermitian but need not remain real. In an arbitrary basis $m\psi^\dagger\psi=U\begin{pmatrix}0&0\\0&m\end{pmatrix}U^\dagger$ for some unitary $U$.

  • There is no basis-independent notion of being real. Only hermiticity is basis independent. And the mass term is definitely hermitian, almost by definition (thou shall always take a hermitian lagrangian).


In higher $d$ the result is the same, except that there are some extra gamma matrices, and the Hilbert space is obtained by acting with the momentum modes $\psi_{\vec k}$ on the zero-modes. This does not change the fact that the mass term is hermitian, and that it is meaningless to ask whether it is real.


That being said, one can also ask about the system as a purely classical theory, i.e., $\psi$ is an $a$-number, not an operator. In this case the Lagrangian is $$ L=i\psi^*\dot\psi+m\psi^*\psi $$ and the mass term is still real: $$ (\psi^*\psi)^*=\psi^*\psi $$ because $(ab)^*=b^*a^*$ for $a$-numbers.

Equivalently, if you expand $\psi$ into its Majorana components, $$ \psi=\chi_1+i\chi_2 $$ the mass term becomes $$ (\chi_1-i\chi_2)(\chi_1+i\chi_2)=\chi_1^2+\chi_2^2+i(\chi_1\chi_2-\chi_2\chi_1) $$

Classically, $\chi_i^2=0$ and therefore, indeed, $$ m\psi^\dagger\psi=2im\chi_1\chi_2 $$ which is again real: $$ (\chi_1\chi_2)^*=\chi_2\chi_1=-\chi_1\chi_2 $$

So, in short: the mass term $i\chi_1\chi_2$ is real, because $i$ and $\chi_1\chi_2$ are separately purely imaginary.

In any case, ascribing reality properties to $a$-numbers is very much convention-dependent (they are not observable). And if you insist, you may run into some quasi-paradoxical results. Consider for example the Poisson-bracket of two real $a$-numbers, $$ \{\chi_i,\chi_j\}=i\delta_{ij} $$ which is purely imaginary even though $\chi_i,\chi_j$ are both individually real.

This all stays true in higher dimensions, but keep in mind that the reality properties of spinors depends sensitively on $d\mod8$. So for example in $d=4$ the reality condition $\psi=\psi^*$ is only valid as written in the Majorana basis, where $\gamma^0$ is purely imaginary.

AccidentalFourierTransform
  • 53,248
  • 20
  • 131
  • 253
0

Given a Grassmann algebra $\Lambda_{\infty}$, its generators are anti-commuting elements $\zeta^{i}$ such that $$\zeta^{i}\zeta^{j}+\zeta^{j}\zeta^{i}=0.$$

A supernumber $z\in\Lambda_{\infty}$ should take the form $$z=z_{B}+z_{S},$$

where $z_{B}\in\mathbb{C}$ is the body, and $$z_{S}=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{k!}C_{i_{1}\dots i_{k}}\zeta^{i_{1}}\cdots\zeta^{i_{k}},\quad C_{i_{1}\dots i_{k}}\in\mathbb{C}$$

is its soul.

The involution (complex conjugation) in $\Lambda_{\infty}$ is defined as

  1. $(\zeta^{i})^{\ast}=\zeta^{i}$.
  2. $(\alpha z)^{\ast}=\bar{\alpha}z^{\ast}$, where $\alpha\in\mathbb{C}$.
  3. $(z+w)^{\ast}=z^{\ast}+w^{\ast}$.
  4. $(zw)^{\ast}=w^{\ast}z^{\ast}$.
  5. $(z^{\ast})^{\ast}=z$.

So under involution (aka complex conjugation), you always flip the order of $z$ and $w$. But they are purely classical numbers, not Hermitian quantum operators.

You call it "Hermitian conjugation", and that's fine. But the rest of the world call it complex conjugation (or involution). For example, in this wikipedia page:


enter image description here


For a Dirac spinor, the Lagrangian $$\mathcal{L}=\bar{\Psi}(i\partial\!\!\!/-m)\Psi$$

is not real (Grassmann-number-valued). To find the real "symmetrized" Lagrangian, consider $$\mathcal{L}^{\ast}=[\bar{\Psi}(i\gamma^{\mu}\overset{\rightarrow}{\partial}_{\mu}-m)\Psi]^{\dagger}=\Psi^{\dagger}(-i\gamma^{\mu\dagger}\overset{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{\mu}-m)\gamma^{0\dagger}\Psi=\Psi^{\dagger}(-i\gamma^{0}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{0}\overset{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{\mu}-m)\gamma^{0}\Psi=\bar{\Psi}(-i\gamma^{\mu}\overset{\leftarrow}{\partial}_{\mu}-m)\Psi.$$

Then, define a new Lagrangian $$\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{S}}=\frac{1}{2}(\mathcal{L}+\mathcal{L}^{\ast})=\frac{1}{2}\bar{\Psi}(i\overset{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}\!\!\!\!\!/-2m)\Psi.$$

It follows that the new Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{S}}$ is real (Grassmann-valued), and so the functional integrand $e^{iS}$ is well-defined.

The mass term is NOT imaginary. Take your equation as an example, the term $2i\xi\chi$, whatever weird representation you choose, is real, because $$(2i\xi\chi)^{\ast}=-2i\chi^{\ast}\xi^{\ast}=2i\xi\chi,$$

when $\chi$ and $\xi$ are real.

For complex Grassmann numbers $\chi$ and $\xi$, you have $$(\xi^{\ast}\chi + \chi^{\ast}\xi)^{\ast}=\chi^{\ast}\xi+\xi^{\ast}\chi.$$

There's nothing tachyon or imaginary here. You thought it was imaginary because you don't flip the order in complex conjugation.


Reference: Ideas and Methods of Supersymmetry and Supergravity: Or a Walk Through Superspace, section 1.9.1

Valac
  • 2,893
  • Could you please read through the whole post? This is just a specific example for warming up excise. The most general case can be found at the end of the post, where $\xi = \xi_1 + i\xi_2$, and $\chi = \chi_1 + i\chi_2$ – MadMax Jun 30 '22 at 14:48
  • @MadMax Let's focus on your arming up exercise at the moment. Why should $\xi^{\ast}=\xi$? This is not true. – Valac Jun 30 '22 at 14:52
  • It is very basic, let's say you have a complex number $z= x+iy$, it can be anywhere on the complex plane. One specific example is that it's on the real axis, which means $y=0$ and $z = x$. The same goes for complex Grassmann number. – MadMax Jun 30 '22 at 14:56
  • @MadMax Since you have no tags for your equations, do you mind explaining the equation after "Low and behold (I will omit the m parameter hereafter):"? – Valac Jun 30 '22 at 15:05
  • Please point out which part of the equation you need explanation: $\bar\psi \psi = \psi_L^\dagger \gamma_0\psi_R + \psi_R^\dagger \gamma_0\psi_L = \xi^(i\chi) + (i\chi)^\xi = i\xi\chi - i\chi\xi = 2i\xi\chi \neq 0$. – MadMax Jun 30 '22 at 15:08
  • $\bar\psi \psi = \psi_L^\dagger \gamma_0\psi_R + \psi_R^\dagger \gamma_0\psi_L$ I don't know the definition of $\psi_{L}$ and $\psi_{R}$. – Valac Jun 30 '22 at 15:10
  • They are left $\psi_L$ and right $\psi_R$ handed part of the Dirac spinor. In the Weyl basis of a 4-column/component spinor, $\psi_L$ is represented by the first two components, while $\psi_R$ is represented by the last two components. So in the specific example of the equation you are asking, $\psi_L = (\xi, 0, 0, 0)^T$ and $\psi_R=(0, 0, i\chi, 0)^T$. – MadMax Jun 30 '22 at 15:15
  • Let me clarify some definitions of terms "real" and "hermitian". It can cause confusion. Let's say following your conjugation rule #1: $(\zeta^{i})^{\ast}=\zeta^{i}$ and $(\zeta^{j})^{\ast}=\zeta^{j}$. According to conjugation rules #2 and #4: $(i\zeta^{i}\zeta^{j})^{\ast}=i^{\ast}(\zeta^{j})^{\ast}(\zeta^{i})^{\ast} = (-i)\zeta^{j}\zeta^{i}= i\zeta^{i}\zeta^{j}$. Is $i\zeta^{i}\zeta^{j}$ real or hermitian? – MadMax Jun 30 '22 at 15:39
  • Can you edit your equations? – Valac Jun 30 '22 at 15:41
  • I don't understand. There's nothing quantum here. Why do you use the word Hermitian? – Valac Jun 30 '22 at 15:42
  • @MadMax The supernumber $i\zeta^{i}\zeta^{j}$ is real. There's nothing quantum, and no Hermitian suff. I still don't fully understand what's going on in your question, but it seems that the "imaginary mass" is because you don't flip the order in involution (aka complex conjugation). Please check this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grassmann_number#Involution,_choice_of_field – Valac Jun 30 '22 at 15:50
  • @MadMax Pseudo-classical fermions are Grassmann number valued. There's nothing quantum or Hermitian here. The canonical quantization of Grassmann number is known as the Clifford algebra. If you quantize $\Lambda_{3}=\left{\zeta^{1},\zeta^{2},\zeta^{3}\right}$, you end up with the Clifford algebra $spin(3)=\left{\sigma^{1},\sigma^{2},\sigma^{3}\right}$, where $\sigma^{i}$ is known as the Pauli matrices. – Valac Jun 30 '22 at 15:55
  • Then it's terminology difference. I call supernumber $i\zeta^{i}\zeta^{j}$ hermitian but not real. You call it real. The fermion Lagrangian mass term is exactly like $i\zeta^{i}\zeta^{j}$, if you call it real then it's real. End of story. – MadMax Jun 30 '22 at 17:19
  • Okay. Can we go back to the original question you were talking about? – Valac Jun 30 '22 at 17:23
  • Just to confirm, you think one can NOT say a classical Lagrangian is Hermitian or not. In other words, you think the Hermitian property does NOT apply to a classical Lagrangian (whether or not Grassmann numbers are involved). Please confirm. – MadMax Jun 30 '22 at 17:24
  • Yes in my language the classial Lagrangian is real. When someone say Hermitian, I automatically assume he's talking about quantum operators. – Valac Jun 30 '22 at 17:27
  • Please confirm that you think the Hermitian property does NOT apply to the classical Lagrangian. Since you have issues with me using "Hermitian" for classical Lagrangian, can you please confirm? – MadMax Jun 30 '22 at 17:28
  • Didn't I just confirm? I call if real you call it Hermitian. Why is this important? Why did you lead me to this question? The original question was not related with this. – Valac Jun 30 '22 at 17:33
  • @MadMax Just added a reference for the mass term and complex conjugation of supernumbers that you can read. – Valac Jul 01 '22 at 00:23