How Does Field Operator Evolution Hold in QFT?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the time evolution of field operators in Quantum Field Theory (QFT), specifically examining the equation from Peskin's text, eq 2.43, and its implications compared to Quantum Mechanics (QM). Participants explore the foundational differences between the two frameworks and the validity of applying concepts from QM to QFT.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how the equation ∅(x,t) = eiHt∅(x)e-iHt, derived in QM, holds in the QFT framework, suggesting that the absence of a simple Eψ=Hψ structure complicates its application.
  • Another participant clarifies that ∅ refers to the field operator and argues that the equation represents the Heisenberg picture, which is derived from the time evolution operator's action.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the direct applicability of the Schrödinger equation to QFT, noting that the time evolution in QFT is not derived from the Schrödinger equation but rather from the Heisenberg equation of motion for operators.
  • One participant suggests that the Hamiltonian acts as the infinitesimal generator of time translations in both QM and QFT, indicating that the evolution operator is used similarly to compute S-matrix elements.
  • There is a discussion about the differences in how time evolution is expressed in QM versus QFT, with emphasis on the roles of wave functions and field operators.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of QM concepts to QFT, with some arguing for the analogy and others highlighting significant differences. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the direct application of the Schrödinger equation in the context of QFT.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in the discussion, particularly regarding the dependence on definitions of operators and the differences in the mathematical frameworks of QM and QFT.

sumeetkd
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
This is a doubt straight from Peskin, eq 2.43
∅(x,t) = eiHt∅(x)e-iHt.

This had been derived in Quantum Mechanics.
How does this hold in the QFT framework?
We don't have the simple Eψ=Hψ structure so this shouldn't directly hold.

I'm sorry if this is too trivial
 
Physics news on Phys.org
sumeetkd said:
This is a doubt straight from Peskin, eq 2.43
∅(x,t) = eiHt∅(x)e-iHt.
What is ∅?

sumeetkd said:
We don't have the simple Eψ=Hψ structure so this shouldn't directly hold.
What's your problem with E|ψ>=H|ψ> in QFT?
 
I think this is just an analogy taken from QM to QFT. I assume ∅ here is an operator. This is just the definition of the Heisenberg picture, which one derives from the way the time evolution operator acts. And the way the time evolution operator acts is pretty much the Schrödinger equation... The time-indipendent version you wrote there is a perfectly valid way to calculate energy eigenvalues in QFT. I hope I didn't write any big mistakes.
 
Last edited:
tom.stoer said:
What is ∅?


What's your problem with E|ψ>=H|ψ> in QFT?

I'm sorry ∅ is the field operator.

The problem is that the Schrödinger equation goes as i\hbar \frac{∂}{∂ t} \Psi = H\Psi
With which we can just write \Psi(x,t) = e-iHt\Psi and hence the Heinsenberg picture.
but this doesn't directly hold for QFT
 
Why not? I mean, the Schrödinger equation expresses nothing more than the fact that the Hamiltonian is the infinitesimal generator of time translations. In Dyson's formula, one uses the time integral of the Hamiltonian density from initial to final time, rather than Ht where H is time-indipendent. I think that's the only real difference, but the evolution operator is used in the same way to compute S-matrix elements.
 
you should be careful; in QM ψ is the wave function and its time evolution (derived from the Schrödinger equation) is ψ(t) = U(t,t0) ψ(t0); in QFT ψ is the field operator and its time evolution ψ(t) = U(t) ψ0 U*(t); but this is not derived from the Schrödinger equation but from the Heisenberg equation of motion for operators.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K