What do we do with the massive scalar quantum field in QFT?

In summary, the conversation discusses the use of quantum fields and how they are used to compute the S-matrix, which gives probabilities for reactions between particles. The primary quantity computed is the two-point expectation value of the fields, and this is related to experiments. However, a deeper understanding of QFT and its connection to physical phenomena requires a good amount of study.
  • #1
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
2023 Award
27,249
18,665
TL;DR Summary
What can you do with a quantum field?
I'm learning some QFT from QFT for the Gifted Amateur. Chapter 11 develops the massive scalar quantum field but they don't seem subsequently to do anything with it. I've looked ahead at the next few chapters, which move on to other stuff, which leaves me wondering what we we actually do with this field? What we have is the field operator:
$$\hat \phi(x) = \int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^{3/2}(2E_p)^{1/2}}(\hat{a}_{\vec p}exp(-ip\cdot x)+\hat{a}^{\dagger}_{\vec p}exp(ip\cdot x))$$
Where ##x, p## are four-vectors, ##E_p = \sqrt{\vec p^2 + m^2}## and ##d^3p## is the integral over all three-momentum states ##\vec p##.

This leads to the normally ordered Hamiltonian:
$$N(\hat H) = \int d^3p (E_p \hat{a}^{\dagger}_{\vec p} \hat{a}_{\vec p}) = \int d^3p (E_p \hat{n}_p)$$

That is all good, but we don't seem to do anything with this now. The only exercise they do is to show that:$$\langle p | \hat \phi(x) | 0 \rangle = \exp(i p \cdot x)$$
This leads me to interpret this as ##\hat \phi(x) | 0 \rangle = |x \rangle##. I.e. this operator acting on the vacuum state results in a single particle with four-position ##x##.

However, although they introduce the concept of a four-momentum state ##|p \rangle##, they don't say anything about four-position states.

My main question is what we do now we have this quantum field? I feel like I want to do something with it! But, what?

The other question is whether we generally continue to use three-momentum creation and annihilation operators (and where the occupation number representation relates to three-momentum states); or, is there going to be a wholesale shift towards using four-momentum states? Or, do we juggle between the two?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Add a ##\phi^4## interaction as a small perturbation and you can have excitations of different momenta scatter from each other.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and dextercioby
  • #3
PeroK said:
Summary:: What can you do with a quantum field?

My main question is what we do now we have this quantum field? I feel like I want to do something with it! But, what?

The other question is whether we generally continue to use three-momentum creation and annihilation operators (and where the occupation number representation relates to three-momentum states); or, is there going to be a wholesale shift towards using four-momentum states? Or, do we juggle between the two?
These have the same answer in a way. You'll use the fields to compute the two point expectation values:
$$\langle\phi(x)\phi(y)\rangle$$
Essentially all computations in field theory will be related to this quantity in some manner.

The three-momentum based creation and annihilation operators are used to compute it.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #4
QLogic said:
These have the same answer in a way. You'll use the fields to compute the two point expectation values:
$$\langle\phi(x)\phi(y)\rangle$$
Essentially all computations in field theory will be related to this quantity in some manner.

The three-momentum based creation and annihilation operators are used to compute it.

Thanks, although I'm not sure that leaves me any the wiser.
 
  • #5
What do you want to know in more detail?
 
  • #6
QLogic said:
What do you want to know in more detail?
The physics I've studied so far has been quite high in terms of purpose and relationship with experiment. I wouldn't say I'm disappointed with QFT so far, but I'm not sure I know much more about what it really tells us about physical phenomena.

Maybe it is a rather dry, theoretical subject, heavy on the mathematics?

What is the point of all this splendidly elegant mathematics I'm asking myself?
 
  • #7
I can appreciate that and it is very difficult to tease out what QFT says in many cases. You have to learn a good bit before you get a connection directly with experiments.

Basically the primary quantity that is computed in QFT is the S-matrix, which gives you the probabilities for a preparation of a quantum system in the (infinitely) distant past to cause a reaction in detectors in the infinitely far future. Usually this is thought of in terms of a collection of particles interacting and scattering into a new collection of particles, but in general this is just a nice picture and QFT is really just "preparation -> detection" in its typical formulation.

To compute the S-matrix you need to calculate expectation values with the fields. Like if you have a scalar field ##\phi## and a fermionic field ##\psi## then something like:
$$\langle\phi(x)\bar{\psi}(y)\psi(z)\rangle$$
Will give you the probability of a ##\phi## particle to decay into two ##\psi## particles. However this 1-1 correspondence between fields and particle species is only true for simpler quantum field theories.

OT: Is there a list of LATEX packages this forum uses somewhere?
 
  • #8
QLogic said:
I can appreciate that and it is very difficult to tease out what QFT says in many cases. You have to learn a good bit before you get a connection directly with experiments.

Basically the primary quantity that is computed in QFT is the S-matrix, which gives you the probabilities for a preparation of a quantum system in the (infinitely) distant past to cause a reaction in detectors in the infinitely far future. Usually this is thought of in terms of a collection of particles interacting and scattering into a new collection of particles, but in general this is just a nice picture and QFT is really just "preparation -> detection" in its typical formulation.

To compute the S-matrix you need to calculate expectation values with the fields. Like if you have a scalar field ##\phi## and a fermionic field ##\psi## then something like:
$$\langle\phi(x)\bar{\psi}(y)\psi(z)\rangle$$
Will give you the probability of a ##\phi## particle to decay into two ##\psi## particles. However this 1-1 correspondence between fields and particle species is only true for simpler quantum field theories.

OT: Is there a list of LATEX packages this forum uses somewhere?
Okay, thanks, perhaps I'll have to be patient.
 
  • #10
PeroK said:
Summary:: What can you do with a quantum field?
Ah, (sigh), I really want to answer with this song :oldbiggrin: but it would need new lyrics.

Anyway, my answer is basically "whatever you can do with a free inertial particle in classical mechanics -- not much". The fun comes when you add interactions, e.g., ##\phi^4## as someone else mentioned.

I haven't read "QFT for the GA", but Peskin & Schroeder also start with a scalar field (for simplicity) and then introduce a ##\phi^4## interaction, also for (relative) simplicity. The pedagogical intent is to teach you about the S-matrix using a reasonably simple example (which even then is rather nontrivial beyond 1-loop).

The S-matrix is where (almost) all the action is in QFT. You can even use it to derive the electron's anomalous magnetic moment.

The other question is whether we generally continue to use three-momentum creation and annihilation operators (and where the occupation number representation relates to three-momentum states); [...]
3-momentum is typical because the asymptotic in/out states represent on-shell particles which live on a 3D hyperboloid in momentum space due to the relativistic mass-shell condition.

HTH.
 
  • #11
PeroK said:
The physics I've studied so far has been quite high in terms of purpose and relationship with experiment. I wouldn't say I'm disappointed with QFT so far, but I'm not sure I know much more about what it really tells us about physical phenomena.

What is the point of all this splendidly elegant mathematics?
One uses the free fields to define creation and annihilation operators These exist in x- and p-versions (Fourier transforms of each other), though the p-versions are the more useful ones for scattering predictions. The creation operators are used to produce free n-particle basis states for every n. These are the asymptotic states in which scattering inputs and outputs are analyzed.

One also uses the free fields to define the interaction terms in the Hamiltonians - essentially as anharmonic oscillators are defined via Hamiltonians on the Hilbert space of harmonic oscillators. But since a field encodes infinitely many oscillators, one needs renormalization techniques (the simplest of these being normal ordering) to produce meaningful interactions. From the Hamiltonian one gets the dynamics and the S-matrix, and from these most predictions needed for analyzing scattering experiments (except those where effects of finite temperature matter).

The S-matrix elements themselves (whose absolute squares give - as in ordinary quantum mechanics - measurable scattering probability densities) can be expressed in perturbation theory as sums of integrals over (renormalized) vacuum expectation values of products of free fields, which makes expressions such as those mentioned by @QLogic relevant for the interpretation of scattering experiments (e.g., what happens at the LHC).
 
  • #12
A. Neumaier said:
One uses the free fields to define creation and annihilation operators These exist in x- and p-versions (Fourier transforms of each other), though the p-versions are the more useful ones for scattering predictions. The creation operators are used to produce free n-particle basis states for every n. These are the asymptotic states in which scattering inputs and outputs are analyzed.

One also uses the free fields to define the interaction terms in the Hamiltonians - essentially as anharmonic oscillators are defined via Hamiltonians on the Hilbert space of harmonic oscillators. But since a field encodes infinitely many oscillators, one needs renormalization techniques (the simplest of these being normal ordering) to produce meaningful interactions. From the Hamiltonian one gets the dynamics and the S-matrix, and from these most predictions needed for analyzing scattering experiments (except those where effects of finite temperature matter).

The S-matrix elements themselves (whose absolute squares give - as in ordinary quantum mechanics - measurable scattering probability densities) can be expressed in perturbation theory as sums of integrals over (renormalized) vacuum expectation values of products of free fields, which makes expressions such as those mentioned by @QLogic relevant for the interpretation of scattering experiments (e.g., what happens at the LHC).

I guess I was just trying to get a firm grasp of what I have learned so far and trying to see what sort of generalisation of QM we have. I'm getting glimpses of what the theory says, but it feels somewhat intangible at this stage. I can follow the mathematics but I don't understand the physics - in fact, I don't really see any physics yet! I'm still 60 pages away from the S-Matrix.

For example:

strangerep said:
Anyway, my answer is basically "whatever you can do with a free inertial particle in classical mechanics -- not much". The fun comes when you add interactions, e.g., ##\phi^4## as someone else mentioned.

In QM, the free particle can be studied and is not trivial. E.g. an evolving Gaussian wave-packet. There are eigenstates, measurements, time evolution, the UP. You have the mathematical machinery, but also what it means physically. You can look at the UP for an evolving wave-packet. That's what I mean by "doing something" with the mathematical machinery.

Would your advice be just to press on with the theory (the next chapters are on the Complex Scalar Field, Internal Symmetries, Electromagnetism, Gauge Fields ...)?

Is understanding the mathematics enough at this stage? Things like "what it all means" will come later?

Thanks.
 
  • #13
You can't work out finite time evolution or eigenstates in QFT in most cases as it is intractable. You basically just have to wait for the S-matrix and the LSZ formula before you start to see what it's all about. On p.162 it starts on applications properly. It's unfortunate but you can't do much until that point.

The whole point of free fields is that they are essentially the Lorentz invariant Fourier transform of particle creation and annihilation operators and will be needed for dealing with particle scattering even in non-free theories. Or more accurately we can reduce calculations in interacting theories to a sequence of integrals of terms from the free theory, so you have to know plenty about free fields first.
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
  • #14
PeroK said:
I guess I was just trying to get a firm grasp of what I have learned so far and trying to see what sort of generalisation of QM we have. I'm getting glimpses of what the theory says, but it feels somewhat intangible at this stage. [...]

Would your advice be just to press on with the theory?

Is understanding the mathematics enough at this stage? Things like "what it all means" will come later?
Sometimes wading through the formal stuff for some time is needed before understanding takes shape.
(It is like a phase transition - once enough little pieces of the puzzle are assembled, suddenly the big picture emerges.) On the other hand, books have the advantage over lectures that you can peek into the future, and this is an important part of preparing for understanding. Read superficially the first few pages of every chapter (even if you understand only little) to see what is going to come - it will help you to form the big picture.

Also, when I learned the subject, i found it very helpful to read different sources simultaneously. One source will explain what the other is missing or takes fro granted. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory#Principles
gives a quick overview.

Peskin & Schroeder have on p.383 a summary of how the effective action (whose computation is one of the peaks in the study of QFT) provides a huge amount of experimentally relevant information. It was a revelation for me when I stumbled upon this page - though it took me much longer to understand in detail what the details mentioned on this page amount to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics contains, just above the section ''Nonperturbative phenomena'' a formula for a scattering amplitude at tree level approximation (which is fine in the beginning).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes QLogic and PeroK
  • #15
PeroK said:
The physics I've studied so far has been quite high in terms of purpose and relationship with experiment. I wouldn't say I'm disappointed with QFT so far, but I'm not sure I know much more about what it really tells us about physical phenomena.

Maybe it is a rather dry, theoretical subject, heavy on the mathematics?

What is the point of all this splendidly elegant mathematics I'm asking myself?
That's a didactical problem with QFT. You need a lot of formal stuff before you can come to the physics. The aim of ("vacuum") QFT is to calculate scattering cross sections, for which you need the S-matrix elements you calculate with help of perturbation theory, for which you develop Feynman diagrams from the formalism.

To motivate you, my advice is to look at the chapter about the S-matrix (which should be somewhere in your book, which I haven't at hand right now, but I think is very good as an introductory book to QFT). Then you have an idea, what all the formalism is good for in the sense of calculating physical quantities related to experiment. Then go ahead and study

(1) Free fields (the only case which can be solved exactly without any recourse to perturbative expansions).

(2) What's needed for perturbation theory (answer: the time-ordered N-point functions of the interacting field theory, which can be formally calculated perturbatively in terms of the free propagator and the free vertices, derived from the Hamiltonian/Lagrangian of the field theory, according to Wick's theorem).

(3) How to organize all the contractions of Wick's theorem in terms of Feynman diagrams (which are just a brilliant notation for the dull formulas and a great shortcut).

(4) Calculate some tree-level results (e.g., for spinor QED, which has pretty simple Feynman rules but needs a study of the simples type of gauge theory first).

(5) Then you are hardened for the really tough problem of radiation corrections, i.e., calculations of higher order which contain closed loops in the Feynman diagrams, leading to divergent integrals, which need to be "renormalized", but that's only the final and toughest step of understanding.

It's of course a quite demaning task to learn all this, but I think it's one of the most fascinating subjects of theoretical physics, and it's universally applicable (not only in HEP scattering theory but also in its application to many-body physics, where it can be applied, in its non-relativistic form, to condensed-matter physics or in relativistic form to the study of the quark-gluon plasma in heavy-ion collisions). It's also a lot of fun and quite addictive, if you are somewhat inclined to mathematical/calculational puzzles :-).
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
  • #16
Thanks everyone.
 

1. What is a Massive Scalar Quantum Field?

A Massive Scalar Quantum Field is a theoretical concept in quantum field theory that describes a fundamental particle with zero spin and non-zero mass. It is a type of quantum field that is believed to exist in the universe and is responsible for the creation and interaction of massive particles such as the Higgs boson.

2. How is a Massive Scalar Quantum Field different from other types of quantum fields?

Unlike other types of quantum fields, a Massive Scalar Quantum Field has a non-zero mass and does not have intrinsic angular momentum or spin. This makes it distinct from other types of quantum fields, such as fermion fields, which have half-integer spin, and gauge fields, which have integer spin.

3. What is the significance of the Higgs boson in relation to the Massive Scalar Quantum Field?

The Higgs boson is a particle predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics, which is believed to be the manifestation of the Massive Scalar Quantum Field. Its discovery in 2012 confirmed the existence of the Higgs field and provided evidence for the mechanism of mass generation in the universe.

4. How does the Massive Scalar Quantum Field interact with other particles?

The Massive Scalar Quantum Field interacts with other particles through the Higgs mechanism, which gives particles their mass. This interaction is responsible for the formation of the Higgs boson and the creation of mass for other particles in the universe.

5. What are some applications of the Massive Scalar Quantum Field theory?

The Massive Scalar Quantum Field theory has many applications in particle physics, cosmology, and astrophysics. It helps us understand the origin of mass in the universe, the behavior of particles at high energies, and the evolution of the universe. It also has practical applications in technology, such as in the development of new materials and technologies based on quantum mechanics.

Similar threads

Replies
24
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
844
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
350
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
5
Views
557
Replies
1
Views
667
Replies
167
Views
7K
Back
Top