Quantum Fields as having infinite degrees of freedom?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of quantum fields and their characterization as having infinite degrees of freedom. Participants explore the implications of this characterization, particularly in relation to the description of point particles and the transition from classical to quantum field theories, including the challenges posed by Minkowski space.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the introduction of quantum fields through the analogy of a vibrating string but questions the validity of describing point particles with fields that have values at every space-time point, especially in Minkowski space.
  • Another participant suggests visualizing quantum fields as a mesh of interconnected springs vibrating in simple harmonic motion, noting the complexity of transitioning from Euclidean to Lorentzian cases.
  • A third participant asserts that the necessity for fields to have infinite degrees of freedom relates to unitarity issues in relativistic quantum mechanics.
  • A later reply references a book that describes fields as local entities, suggesting that their Lagrangians depend only on properties in the infinitesimal neighborhood of a point, which may provide a clearer understanding of fields as localized rather than occupying all space.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of quantum fields and the implications of infinite degrees of freedom. There is no consensus on how to reconcile these concepts with the description of particles or the transition between different geometrical frameworks.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexities involved in transitioning from Euclidean to Lorentzian frameworks and the potential misunderstandings surrounding Wick rotation. The discussion also touches on the implications of locality in field theory, which may not be universally accepted.

evac-q8r
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
The theory of quantum fields is very strange, indeed, I must admit. Usually in books they introduce a quantum field from the standpoint of a vibrating string in one dimension. Along the string are discrete points or masses that when one of which are disturbed a disturbance is created along the length of the string in the from of a wave. As a result, each mass or point is displaced by a certain amount at a specific time, which makes sense. Even when you pass this case into the case of the continuum in which the points are ever so close together it still makes sense.

But the problem comes when we try to insist that a point particle can be described by a field which has a value at every space-time point. To make matters worse we are now using Minkowski space which is 4-dimensional and the time and space are mixtures of one another. There is no analogy between the original displacement in the string and a displacement of the field in Minkowski space because each space-time point may not move or be displaced. So how can a particle be described by a field which has infinitely many degrees of freedom? Even if we tried to describe this in the one-dimensional case it still makes no sense.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I have seen attempts to visualize this (in the euclidean case) by thinking of a mesh of springs, interconnected in a three dimensional littice with some definite spacing, and all vibrating in SHM. Once you have that in mind, take the lattice spacing to zero, and voila!

The Lorentzian case is harder, and careful physicists point out that the transition from Euclid to Lorentz is not as simple as Wick continuation makes it seem.
 
Thats correct Wick rotation is often abused.

The fact that fields need to have infinite degrees of freedom ultimately boils down to a Unitarity problem, and is inescapable if you believe in relativistic quantum mechanics.
 
I just finished reading in a book entitled How is Quantum Field Theory Possible? by Sunny Y. Auyang that the fields are local fields whose Lagrangians depend only on the properties in the infinitesimal neighborhood of the point x. If this is the case, then I might have an easier time understanding what a field is. If I understand correctly a particle field does not take up the entire space but only a localized region.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Understanding Ghost Fields in QED: Eliminating Unphysical Degrees of Freedom"
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Graduate Implementing Higher Degrees of Freedom
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Graduate Magnetic field produced by moving charge in operator form
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Graduate Quantum Field theory vs. many-body Quantum Mechanics
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
Undergrad What happened to the spatial degrees of freedom for the second particle?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Is Maxwell's electromagnetism an effective (field) theory?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Schrödinger equation and classical wave equation
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
Graduate Is the freedom-of-choice loophole valid in quantum entanglement experiments?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate How Does Infinite Freedom Affect Quantum Field Theory?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Graduate Exact symmetry, quantum states, and symmetric dynamics
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K