I Classical Field Theory for a system of particles

LarryS
Gold Member
Messages
356
Reaction score
33
In classical field theory, the field, φ, is usually constructed from a very large number of coupled harmonic oscillators. Let's say our φ consists of just electrons.

What does φ best represent physically, a very large number of electrons or can it represent just a few electrons? Which is the best fit, or does it matter?

As always, thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
referframe said:
In classical field theory, the field, φ, is usually constructed from a very large number of coupled harmonic oscillators. Let's say our φ consists of just electrons.

What does φ best represent physically, a very large number of electrons or can it represent just a few electrons? Which is the best fit, or does it matter?

As always, thanks in advance.

In QFT the fields are position-dependent operators that create/annihilate particles at different points in space. They're formally quite analogous to the creation and annihilation operators that one encounters in the quantum mechanical treatment of the harmonic oscillator.
 
A quantized field can also have states that are not eigenstates of the particle number operator, e.g. don't have an exactly specified number of electrons or other particles.

An unquantized classical field doesn't usually represent any kind of particles (unless it's some kind of classical probability density field), the particle-wave duality is a completely quantum mechanical thing.

Only fields that have a linear field equation can be represented as a system of harmonic oscillators.
 
hilbert2 said:
A quantized field can also have states that are not eigenstates of the particle number operator, e.g. don't have an exactly specified number of electrons or other particles.

An unquantized classical field doesn't usually represent any kind of particles (unless it's some kind of classical probability density field), the particle-wave duality is a completely quantum mechanical thing.

Only fields that have a linear field equation can be represented as a system of harmonic oscillators.

Leonard Susskind has an internet video course on "Classical Field Theory" in which he discusses how a classical field of charged particles becomes gauge invariant by coupling the field (covariant derivative) to the EM four-vector. But he never really goes into any detail regarding the physical nature of the "system of charged particles". So, my question is kind of within that context.

Are you saying that the classical field that he describes has no physical purpose other than a field that is to eventually be quantised?
 
I've seen some kind of hydrodynamical models where an electrically charged gas that has a density field ##\rho## and a current density field ##\mathbf{j}## is coupled with electric and magnetic fields, but those models assume that matter is continuous and doesn't consist of particles. I can't see how anything useful could be done with fields like Klein-Gordon or Dirac fields without quantizing them, but it's possible that I'm wrong.
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top