Can the Commutator of Charges in QFT be Calculated Using Different Times?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of the commutator of charges in Quantum Field Theory (QFT) and whether it is necessary for the times of the fields involved to be equal when using a charge to generate transformations of a field. Participants explore the implications of using different times in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Patrick questions the necessity of using equal times in the commutator for the SUSY charge and the scalar field transformation, noting that the charge is time-independent.
  • Some participants suggest that the equal time commutator is defined as such for consistency with non-relativistic quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg picture, where time dependence is introduced after establishing the commutation relations.
  • Others argue that while it is not strictly necessary to use equal times, it simplifies the calculations, as commutation relations at different times can be more complex but yield the same results.
  • A later reply mentions that the commutators at different times are related by a differential equation and that they do not yield zero, contrary to initial assumptions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of equal times in the commutator calculations. While some acknowledge that it simplifies the process, others argue that it is not strictly required, indicating a lack of consensus on the issue.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the Heisenberg picture and the role of time dependence in QFT, but there are unresolved aspects regarding the implications of using different times in the calculations.

nrqed
Science Advisor
Messages
3,762
Reaction score
297
Consider the SUSY charge

[tex]Q= \int d^3y~ \sigma^\mu \chi~ ~\partial_\mu \phi^\dagger~[/tex]

The SUSY transformation of fields, let's say of the scalar field, can be found using the commutator

[tex]i [ \epsilon \cdot Q, \phi(x)] = \delta \phi(x)[/tex]

using the equal time commutator

[tex][\phi(\vec{x},t), \dot{\phi}^\dagger(\vec{y},t) ] = \delta^3(\vec{x} - \vec{y})[/tex]


Everything works fine at the condition of assuming that the time in [tex]\phi^\dagger(y)[/tex] is equal to the time in in [tex]\phi(x)[/tex] .

However, I don't see why we need to assume this. The charge is time independent so we should be able to use whatever time we like to calculate the commutator. But if we pick a different time than the time of [tex]\phi(x)[/tex], we get zero for the transformation of the scalar field, which is incorrect.

So why do we need to set the two times equal?

Thanks in advance,


Patrick
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The reason for it is called the equal time commutator is simply that it is defined to be like that. At least that is the impression I have by reading 7 introductory books on QFT. Nothing deeper than "in the spirit of non Rel QM"...

But the reason for choosing equal time then is that one includes time dependence by Heisenberg picture, i.e we start with time INDEP. fields, and then have the commutator:
[tex] [\phi(\vec{x}), \dot{\phi}^\dagger(\vec{y}) ] = \delta^3(\vec{x} - \vec{y}) [/tex]

Then we add the time dependence of the fields, which are operators in QFT, by Heisenberg picture.

See e.g. page 41 in srednicki's textbook

http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~mark/ms-qft-DRAFT.pdf
 
malawi_glenn said:
The reason for it is called the equal time commutator is simply that it is defined to be like that. At least that is the impression I have by reading 7 introductory books on QFT. Nothing deeper than "in the spirit of non Rel QM"...

But the reason for choosing equal time then is that one includes time dependence by Heisenberg picture, i.e we start with time INDEP. fields, and then have the commutator:
[tex] [\phi(\vec{x}), \dot{\phi}^\dagger(\vec{y}) ] = \delta^3(\vec{x} - \vec{y}) [/tex]

Then we add the time dependence of the fields, which are operators in QFT, by Heisenberg picture.

See e.g. page 41 in srednicki's textbook

http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~mark/ms-qft-DRAFT.pdf

Hi Malawi Glenn,

thanks for your reply.

Sorry if my question was not clear. I was not asking about the equal time commutation relation itself but about using a charge to generate the transformation of a field. When we use the commutator of a charge with a field to generate the transformation of that field, we must assume that the time in the fields of thecharge must be equal to the time of the field that we are varying. I wonder why this is the case.

Thanks!
 
It's not strictly necessary to use the charge in terms of fields at the same time, but it is easier. The commutation relations between fields at different times can be worked out (and are not zero), and using them here would give the same answer, but that way is more complicated.
 
StatusX said:
It's not strictly necessary to use the charge in terms of fields at the same time, but it is easier. The commutation relations between fields at different times can be worked out (and are not zero), and using them here would give the same answer, but that way is more complicated.

Interesting! Thanks for clarifying this. It seemed to me at first sight that it would give zero. It does not give zero because there are derivatives acting on the fields?
 
It doesn't give zero when the times are different because it doesn't give zero when they're the same, and these two commutators are related by a simple differential equation. Namely, with a little work you can show that this commutator is basically the Green's function for whatever equations of motion the fields satisfy. One way to compute this for the free field is show in equation 4.11 in Srednicki.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K