Calculating Probability of Field States in QFT

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the feasibility of calculating the probability of field states in Quantum Field Theory (QFT), specifically for scalar fields. It highlights that the ground-state wave functional can be expressed in a specific mathematical form, leading to a probability density for field configurations. The conversation also touches on the relationship between different formulations of QFT, such as the Schrödinger picture and the operator formulation, emphasizing their equivalence. Additionally, it addresses the Wightman axioms and the distinction between test functions and operators in this context. Overall, the thread explores the complexities of deriving probability amplitudes in QFT, particularly in relation to free field theory.
GarageDweller
Messages
103
Reaction score
0
Is it actually possible to calculate the probability of field states in QFT? For example the probability of some scalar field being found as some function f(x,t), i find this problem ignored in most texts.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes. There is a HW problem about this somewhere in Srednicki's text. For a free scalar field, the ground-state wave functional takes the form
\psi(\varphi)\propto \exp\left[-{1\over2}\int d^3\!x\,d^3\!y\,\varphi(\vec x)K(\vec x,\vec y)\varphi(\vec y)\right]
where ##K(\vec x,\vec y)## is formally defined by something like
K(x,y)=\int {d^3\!k\over(2\pi)^3}\,\sqrt{\vec k{}^2+m^2}\exp\left[i\vec k\cdot(\vec x-\vec y)\right]
Then ##|\psi(f)|^2## gives the probability density (in the space of functions) that ##\varphi(x)=f(x)##. This is time independent because the ground state (like all energy eigenstates) is time independent.
 
GarageDweller said:
Is it actually possible to calculate the probability of field states in QFT? For example the probability of some scalar field being found as some function f(x,t), i find this problem ignored in most texts.

You find what you need in

www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=388556&page=2

Read post#5, then jump to posts# 26 to 31

Sam
 
You wrote in your link that \psi(f) where f is a function of position and time is a probability amplitude (a number). In your notation, has f to be a Schrodinger solution of the system?.

I ask this question because i try to link this to Wightman axioms:
Look at W1 axiom
here f is just a test function and \psi(f) is (with a spin 0 field) an operator defined on a dense subset D of the Hilbert space containing the vacuum.
How can we find your probability amplitude from these operator valued distributions?
What is the relation to your notation?
 
naima said:
You wrote in your link that \psi(f) where f is a function of position and time is a probability amplitude (a number). In your notation, has f to be a Schrodinger solution of the system?.

Where did I say that?

I ask this question because i try to link this to Wightman axioms:
Look at W1 axiom
here f is just a test function and \psi(f) is (with a spin 0 field) an operator defined on a dense subset D of the Hilbert space containing the vacuum.
How can we find your probability amplitude from these operator valued distributions?
What is the relation to your notation?

This is the usual setup in ordinary (operator, Heisenberg) formulation of QFT. The formulation I was describing is the coordinate representation of the Schrodinger picture of QFT. The two formulations are equivalent in QFT as they are in QM.

Sam
 
naima said:
You wrote in your link that \psi(f) where f is a function of position and time
Actually just position.

naima said:
In your notation, has f to be a Schrodinger solution of the system?.
No it's any function.

naima said:
I ask this question because i try to link this to Wightman axioms:
Look at W1 axiom
here f is just a test function and \psi(f) is (with a spin 0 field) an operator defined on a dense subset D of the Hilbert space containing the vacuum.
Wightman's ##f## and ##\psi## are not the the same as my ##f## and ##\psi##. Let's change the name of the Wightman ##f## to ##w## and the Wightman ##\psi## to ##\cal O##. Then ##{\cal O}(w)=\int d^4\!x\,w(\vec x,t)\varphi(\vec x,t)## is an operator. You can now ask for the probability distribution for the value of this operator in a given quantum state (though this is not something that usually gets asked by people interested in the Wightman axioms), and this could certainly be done in free field theory. I think I know how this would work out, but don't have the time to check right now.
 
Thank you Avodyne
@Samalkhaiat
As the thread was closed (why?) i cannot use the QUOTE tool.
thread 26: "1) the field ϕ in Ψ[ϕ] is an ordinary function"
thread 26: "The wave functional Ψ[ϕ,t]=⟨ϕ|Ψ(t)⟩, represents the probability amplitude for the field to be in the configuration ϕ(x⃗ ) at time t. "
 
Last edited:
naima said:
@Samalkhaiat
As the thread was closed (why?) i cannot use the QUOTE tool.

I believe because it is old.

thread 26: "1) the field ϕ in Ψ[ϕ] is an ordinary function"

You need to understand that in this formalism, \phi is just a coordinate point in the field space, same as x in the wavefunction \psi ( x ) of QM. And since we are considering the coordinate representation, the action of the operator \hat{ \phi } on the wavefunctional results in multiplying the wavefunctional with the eigenvalue \phi ( \vec{ x } ). This corresponds to the usual coordinate representation of QM where we have \hat{ x } \psi ( x ) = x \psi ( x ). In the Schroginger picture the operators are independent of time, so like the time-independent \hat{ x } in ordinary QM, the operator \hat{ \phi } ( \vec{ x } ) and its eigenvalue \phi ( \vec{ x } ) do not depend on time.

thread 26: "The wave functional Ψ[ϕ,t]=⟨ϕ|Ψ(t)⟩, represents the probability amplitude for the field to be in the configuration ϕ(x⃗ ) at time t. "

This is exactly like what you do in QM: \psi ( x , t ) = \langle x | \psi ( t ) \rangle

Sam
 
Avodyne said:
Wightman's ##f## and ##\psi## are not the the same as my ##f## and ##\psi##. Let's change the name of the Wightman ##f## to ##w## and the Wightman ##\psi## to ##\cal O##. Then ##{\cal O}(w)=\int d^4\!x\,w(\vec x,t)\varphi(\vec x,t)## is an operator. You can now ask for the probability distribution for the value of this operator in a given quantum state (though this is not something that usually gets asked by people interested in the Wightman axioms), and this could certainly be done in free field theory. I think I know how this would work out, but don't have the time to check right now.

It is interesting to see that ##{\cal O}(w)## does not depend on time.
If ##{| \cal O}(w)| \Omega \rangle## is the result of the measurement, it comes only from ##w## which is null outside of the apparatus and after the apparatus is switch off. ##w## may appear as a hidden variable.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
563
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 134 ·
5
Replies
134
Views
11K