Self-adjointness of the real scalar field

In summary, the QFT lecture notes by Timo Weigand discuss the self-adjointness of real scalar fields and the corresponding commutation relations. The Fourier transformed fields are also self-adjoint, and the relation ϕ(p)=ϕ†(−p) \phi(\textbf{p}) = \phi^{\dagger}(-\textbf{p}) is taken in order to keep the field self-adjoint. This also implies that the Fourier transformed field is symmetric with respect to the momentum.
  • #1
soviet1100
50
16
Hello,

This problem is in reference to the QFT lecture notes (p.18-19) by Timo Weigand (Heidelberg University).

He writes:

For the real scalar fields, we get self-adjoint operators [itex] \phi(\textbf{x}) = \phi^{\dagger}(\textbf{x}) [/itex] with the commutation relations

[itex] [\phi(\textbf{x}), \Pi(\textbf{y})] = i \delta^{(3)}(\textbf{x} - \textbf{y}) [/itex]

Fourier transforming the fields as

[itex] \phi(\textbf{x}) = \int{\frac{d^{3}p}{(2\pi)^{3}} \tilde{\phi}(\textbf{p}) e^{i\textbf{p.x}}} [/itex]

where [itex] \phi(\textbf{p}) = \phi^{\dagger}(-\textbf{p}) [/itex] ensures that [itex] \phi(\textbf{x}) [/itex] is self-adjoint.
___________

I have verified that [itex] \phi(\textbf{p}) = \phi^{\dagger}(-\textbf{p}) [/itex] does indeed make [itex] \phi(\textbf{x}) [/itex] self-adjoint, but is this defined in order to make [itex] \phi(\textbf{x}) [/itex] self-adjoint, or is it an independent truth?

Also, in non-relativistic quantum mechanics, the hermitian adjoint (dagger) of an operator was represented by the transpose conjugate of the matrix representing the operator. In QFT, we have fields that are operators. Is there a matrix representation of these field operators too?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
soviet1100 said:
I have verified that ϕ(p)=ϕ†(−p) \phi(\textbf{p}) = \phi^{\dagger}(-\textbf{p}) does indeed make ϕ(x) \phi(\textbf{x}) self-adjoint, but is this defined in order to make ϕ(x) \phi(\textbf{x}) self-adjoint, or is it an independent truth?

No, the relation is taken in order to keep the field self-adjoint (it's proven from considering the field self-adjoint).

soviet1100 said:
hermitian adjoint (dagger) of an operator was represented by the transpose conjugate of the matrix representing the operator

You also had the same thing in QM... it appears when your operators stopped having countable & discrete eigenstates/values. In that case it's not interesting to represent them with matrices.
 
  • #3
ChrisVer said:
No, the relation is taken in order to keep the field self-adjoint (it's proven from considering the field self-adjoint).
You also had the same thing in QM... it appears when your operators stopped having countable & discrete eigenstates/values. In that case it's not interesting to represent them with matrices.
Thanks for the help, ChrisVer.

Just one more question. The Fourier transformed field [itex] \tilde{\phi}(\textbf{p}) [/itex] is also self-adjoint with [itex] \tilde{\phi}(\textbf{p}) = \tilde{ \phi}^{\dagger}(\textbf{p}) [/itex], isn't it? But if this is the case, then along with [itex] \tilde{\phi}(\textbf{p}) = \tilde{\phi}^{\dagger}(-\textbf{p}) [/itex], this implies [itex] \tilde{\phi}(\textbf{p}) = \tilde{\phi}(-\textbf{p}) [/itex], right?
 

1. What is the definition of self-adjointness in the context of the real scalar field?

Self-adjointness is a property of operators in quantum mechanics, where the operator is equal to its own adjoint. In the case of the real scalar field, this means that the operator is Hermitian, which is equivalent to the condition that the operator is equal to its own complex conjugate.

2. Why is self-adjointness important in the study of the real scalar field?

Self-adjointness is an important property because it allows us to interpret the operator as a physical observable. This means that the eigenvalues of the operator correspond to measurable quantities in experiments.

3. How is self-adjointness related to the conservation of energy in the real scalar field?

In the real scalar field, the Hamiltonian operator is self-adjoint, meaning that it is equal to its own adjoint. This property ensures that energy, which is represented by the Hamiltonian, is conserved in the system.

4. What are the implications of a non-self-adjoint operator in the real scalar field?

If the operator in the real scalar field is not self-adjoint, it means that there is a violation of physical laws, such as the conservation of energy. This can lead to inconsistencies and contradictions in the theory and must be avoided.

5. How do we determine if an operator in the real scalar field is self-adjoint or not?

To determine if an operator is self-adjoint, we can use the Hermiticity condition, which states that the operator must be equal to its own adjoint. This can be checked by comparing the operator to its complex conjugate and ensuring that they are equal.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
8
Views
888
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
5
Views
989
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
845
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top