Calculating Probability of Field States in QFT

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter GarageDweller
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Probability Qft States
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of the probability of field states in Quantum Field Theory (QFT), specifically focusing on scalar fields and their representation as functions of space and time. Participants explore theoretical frameworks, mathematical formulations, and connections to established axioms in QFT.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the feasibility of calculating the probability of field states in QFT, noting that this topic is often overlooked in literature.
  • One participant references a homework problem from Srednicki's text, providing a specific form of the ground-state wave functional for a free scalar field and suggesting that the probability density can be derived from it.
  • Another participant seeks clarification on the nature of the function f in the context of probability amplitudes and its relation to Wightman axioms, indicating a desire to connect different formulations of QFT.
  • There is a discussion about the equivalence of the Schrödinger picture and the operator formulation of QFT, with participants expressing differing views on the implications of this equivalence.
  • One participant proposes renaming variables from Wightman's framework to avoid confusion and discusses the operator representation of test functions in relation to probability distributions in free field theory.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the operator associated with the field does not depend on time, drawing parallels to quantum mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying opinions on the interpretation of probability amplitudes and the relationship between different formulations of QFT. There is no consensus on the best approach to calculating probabilities of field states, and multiple competing views remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the relationship between different formulations and the definitions of functions used in QFT. There are unresolved mathematical steps and dependencies on specific theoretical frameworks that are acknowledged but not resolved.

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 Schrödinger 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 Schrödinger 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 Schrödinger 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 Schrödinger 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
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K