Quantizing Zero-Frequency Modes: A Challenge

  • Thread starter Thread starter Manchot
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Modes
Manchot
Messages
470
Reaction score
5
Let's say you want to quantize the EM field in a system with real permittivities and permeabilities. You expand the fields into a superpositions of their classical modes, and note that pretty much every real spatial mode requires two real conjugate canonical variables to describe its time evolution. Then you quantize these variables in the usual way, and get oscillators out of them, along with the bosonic creation and annihilation operators. All of this works fine for the non-zero frequency fields, but fails on the zero-frequency field because it only requires one variable to describe its behavior: its amplitude. Is there a way to properly quantize static fields?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Manchot said:
Let's say you want to quantize the EM field in a system with real permittivities and permeabilities. You expand the fields into a superpositions of their classical modes, and note that pretty much every real spatial mode requires two real conjugate canonical variables to describe its time evolution. Then you quantize these variables in the usual way, and get oscillators out of them, along with the bosonic creation and annihilation operators. All of this works fine for the non-zero frequency fields, but fails on the zero-frequency field because it only requires one variable to describe its behavior: its amplitude. Is there a way to properly quantize static fields?

You speaking many virtual photon zero frequency no energies, or another one? Analyszing Fourier Transforms (for ZERO only - not many) give the field. Yes, this need mathematic, No initial final Not in foam - I know this.

OR:

Field not there when no observers. Only probables do you mean this?.
 
Last edited:
^ I didn't quite understand what you meant. To be clearer, I'm referring to the zero-frequency classical modes, i.e., the static solutions of Maxwell's equations. If you try to quantize them in the same way that you quantize the other modes, you fail because they only require one canonical variable to describe them and can't be described by Hamilton's equations. I'm wondering how to get around this.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top