A question about <The Quantum Theory of Fields> P.120

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a specific statement from Steven Weinberg's "The Quantum Theory of Fields," particularly regarding the behavior of matrix elements of the operator W(t) between energy eigenstates as time approaches infinity. Participants are exploring the implications of smooth superpositions of energy eigenstates and their relation to the vanishing of these matrix elements.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant interprets Weinberg's statement about W(t) and proposes a mathematical approach involving the matrix elements between energy eigenstates.
  • The same participant suggests that as time approaches ±∞, the right-hand side of their derived expression behaves like the high-frequency limit of a Fourier transform, which vanishes for sufficiently smooth functions.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about the meaning of "smooth superposition" and acknowledges the initial explanation as making sense.
  • A later reply reiterates the initial mathematical approach but questions whether it proves that the matrix element of W(t) is only diagonal, suggesting that it does not guarantee vanishing for α=β.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of the mathematical derivation. There is uncertainty regarding the interpretation of "smooth superpositions" and whether the matrix elements necessarily vanish for all cases.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the dependence on the definitions of smooth functions and the conditions under which the Fourier transform behavior is applied. The discussion remains open regarding the implications of the results derived.

Sam Wong
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
The Quantum Theory of Fields, Steven Weinberg, P.120

above 3.3.24, it says,

If the matrix elements of W between H0 - eigenstates are sufficiently smooth functions of energy, then matrix elements of W(t) between smooth super-positions of energy eigenstates vanish for t→±∞

I can't get this. Could anyone please show this explicitly?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well I'm not sure, but here's a stab.. Weinberg has W(t) ≡ eiH0t W e-iH0t

Take the matrix elements of both sides, between energy eigenstates Ψα and Ψβ.

α,W(t)Ψβ) = eiEαtα,WΨβ) e-iEβt = ei(Eα - Eβ)tα,WΨβ)

Now what he wants us to look at is matrix elements between smooth superpositions of energy eigenstates. So, um, take ∫∫f1(Eα) f2(Eβ) dEα dEβ of both sides, where f1, f2 are arbitrary smooth functions. The point now is that as t → ±∞ the RHS is basically the high-frequency limit of a Fourier transform. But the Fourier transform of a sufficiently smooth function goes to zero at ω = ±∞, so we have to conclude that the RHS is zero in the limit, and hence so is the LHS!
 
Thanks for your reply!

I was not sure about what he meant by smooth superposition.

I think your understanding make sense.
 
Bill_K said:
Well I'm not sure, but here's a stab.. Weinberg has W(t) ≡ eiH0t W e-iH0t

Take the matrix elements of both sides, between energy eigenstates Ψα and Ψβ.

α,W(t)Ψβ) = eiEαtα,WΨβ) e-iEβt = ei(Eα - Eβ)tα,WΨβ)

Now what he wants us to look at is matrix elements between smooth superpositions of energy eigenstates. So, um, take ∫∫f1(Eα) f2(Eβ) dEα dEβ of both sides, where f1, f2 are arbitrary smooth functions. The point now is that as t → ±∞ the RHS is basically the high-frequency limit of a Fourier transform. But the Fourier transform of a sufficiently smooth function goes to zero at ω = ±∞, so we have to conclude that the RHS is zero in the limit, and hence so is the LHS!


I read your explanation again and I think your explanation proves that the matrix element of W(t) is diagonal only. It is not guaranteed vanishing for α=β
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
  • · Replies 232 ·
8
Replies
232
Views
22K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
417
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K