- #36
kof9595995
- 679
- 2
Today I tried to do the same to Dirac field--reduce it to 1+0 dimension, but I could get nothing like [x,p]=i, is it that Dirac field can't be reduce to a QM analog?
kof9595995 said:Today I tried to do the same to Dirac field--reduce it to 1+0 dimension, but I could get nothing like [x,p]=i, is it that Dirac field can't be reduce to a QM analog?
kof9595995 said:BTW it'd be really nice to have a teacher like you : )
kof9595995 said:Actually, if Dirac field can't be reduced to QM form in simple manner, would QFT give consistent result with QM result of Dirac equation? We know single-particle interpretation of Dirac equation still gives a lot of meaningful result, does it?
kof9595995 said:Then I'm worried, can we really recover results QM from QFT? Especially for fermion fields, I don't even know where to start, how can we construct something like [x,p] from anti-commutation relations of fields?
kof9595995 said:Then I'm worried, can we really recover results QM from QFT? Especially for fermion fields, I don't even know where to start, how can we construct something like [x,p] from anti-commutation relations of fields?
bigubau said:For the fermion part of fields, the passage from QFT back to QM makes no sense, as the fundamental property of anticommutation is lost.
A. Neumaier said:Of course it does. Only the formula for N(A) gets more complicated since A is now a matrix and you need to sum over four spinor indices.
It is even a bit more subtle than that, people always rely upon a statistics theorem (that only bose and fermi occur in nature, if you move away from Hilbert space that might evaporate too). But your general comment is correct, that is why the natural construction for a relativistic dynamics is one in which free field theory applies locally (see my book for that statement) so that spin statistics holds, but globally particle notions as well as the spin statistics relation become dependent upon the way you coarse grain and an effective quantum group description may be appropriate here.bigubau said:Your statement doesn't really address mine.
The point I was making was that a correct theory of fermions (anticommuting particles with positive semi-integer spin) makes sense only in the realms of QFT on a Fock space, because, as far as I'm aware (here I may wrong and hopefully someone would correct me), the spin-statistics theorem is a result of QFT, not of Galilean or specially relativistic quantum mechanics of systems (I call the latter <normal QM>).
Unfortunately I cannot back my statement by quoting this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-statistics_theorem, because it's not writtem in the language of axiomatical QFT. Rigorous treatments of the theorem can be found of course in the books by Streater & Wightman, Bogolubov (1975 one), Lopuszanski and probably many others.
So anticommutation required by the spin-stat. thm. is forced by existence of quantum fields (or Wightman functionals if you prefer), which means QFT. Dropping QFT, that is going back to the 1-particle Hilbert space of <normal QM>, means dropping the notion of fermion, dropping anticommutation relations.
bigubau said:Your statement doesn't really address mine.
The point I was making was that a correct theory of fermions (anticommuting particles with positive semi-integer spin) makes sense only in the realms of QFT on a Fock space, because, as far as I'm aware (here I may wrong and hopefully someone would correct me), the spin-statistics theorem is a result of QFT, not of Galilean or specially relativistic quantum mechanics of systems (I call the latter <normal QM>).
bigubau said:So anticommutation required by the spin-stat. thm. is forced by existence of quantum fields (or Wightman functionals if you prefer), which means QFT. Dropping QFT, that is going back to the 1-particle Hilbert space of <normal QM>, means dropping the notion of fermion, dropping anticommutation relations.
you'd also have to admit that for the boson part of fields, the passage from QFT back to QM makes no sense, as the fundamental property of commutation is lost. But this is nonsense.bigubau said:For the fermion part of fields, the passage from QFT back to QM makes no sense, as the fundamental property of anticommutation is lost.
How does this come about? Do a(p) and A(p,q) commute? Anyway you help me realize that I had a wrong impression that all QM operators can somehow be express by field operators phi.A. Neumaier said:The free Dirac equation is the 1-particle sector of the quantum field theory of a free electron field. Operators A(p,q) on the 1-particle Hilbert space extend to corresponding field operators by means of the functor that maps A to a bilinear form N(A) in the c/a operators, which in the simplest case of a scalar field takes the form
[tex]N(A)=\int dp a^*(p)A(p,q)a(p).[/tex]
[for some unknown reason, the dp prints as dx on my screen. Note:q is the differential operator in the momentum representation, not a variable.]
kof9595995 said:How does this come about? Do a(p) and A(p,q) commute? Anyway you help me realize that I had a wrong impression that all QM operators can somehow be express by field operators phi.
kof9595995 said:Why can't we just use the QM operator directly,but have to map it to a new object? You mean the 1-particle state in QFT is different from the 1- particle state in QM? How?
I used this prescription and try to calculate commutator [x,p], but it seems to lead me nowhere:A. Neumaier said:Operators A(p,q) on the 1-particle Hilbert space extend to corresponding field operators by means of the functor that maps A to a bilinear form N(A) in the c/a operators, which in the simplest case of a scalar field takes the form
[tex]N(A)=\int dp a^*(p)A(p,q)a(p).[/tex]
[for some unknown reason, the dp prints as dx on my screen. Note:q is the differential operator in the momentum representation, not a variable.]
kof9595995 said:I used this prescription and try to calculate commutator [x,p], (Sorry, I know it looks horribly tedious)