Commutation relations for an interacting scalar field

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of canonical commutation relations for free scalar fields to interacting scalar fields in quantum field theory. Participants explore the implications of the Hilbert space structure in both free and interacting theories, questioning the validity of assumptions made in standard texts.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions Schwartz's assertion that the Hilbert space for interacting theories is the same as for free theories, expressing confusion over how states could remain unchanged in an interacting context.
  • Another participant argues that while the Lagrangian changes with interactions, the states themselves do not necessarily change, using the example of electrons and photons to illustrate this point.
  • It is noted that Haag's theorem suggests that interacting quantum fields cannot be described using the same Hilbert space as free fields, indicating a potential limitation in the standard assumptions of quantum field theory.
  • A reference to a book is provided, suggesting that Haag's theorem can be overlooked in practical applications of perturbative quantum field theory.
  • A participant expresses clarity on the topic after considering the responses, while also acknowledging the limitations posed by Haag's theorem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement regarding the implications of Haag's theorem and the nature of the Hilbert space in interacting theories. Some assert that the states remain the same despite the introduction of interactions, while others reference Haag's theorem to challenge this view.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of the relationship between free and interacting theories, particularly in relation to Haag's theorem and the assumptions made in quantum field theory literature. Limitations in understanding and the implications of these theoretical frameworks are acknowledged but remain unresolved.

eoghan
Messages
201
Reaction score
7
TL;DR
Why are the commutation relations for interacting fields assumed to be the same as that of free fields?
Hi there,

In his book "Quantum field theory and the standard model", Schwartz assumes that the canonical commutation relations for a free scalar field also apply to interacting fields (page 79, section 7.1). As a justification he states:

This is a natural assumption, since at any given time the Hilbert space for the interacting theory is the same as that of a free theory.

I do not understand this explanation. Can you please elaborate?

I mean, how can the Hilbert space of the interacting theory be the same as the one of the free theory? In an interacting theory, I expect to have different states than in a non interacting theory, so the Hilbert space should be different, isn't it?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby, vanhees71 and PeroK
Physics news on Phys.org
eoghan said:
In an interacting theory, I expect to have different states than in a non interacting theory
Not necessarily, just a different Lagrangian. For example, consider a non-interacting theory of electrons and photons. It would have electron states and photon states, with a Lagrangian that had a kinetic term for electrons, a mass term for electrons, and a kinetic term for photons.

If we now add the electron-photon interaction to this theory, we add the QED coupling term to the Lagrangian, but we don't change any states: there are still electron states and photon states. All we have done is introduced new possibilities for transitions between states, such as scattering processes.

eoghan said:
the Hilbert space should be different
Not for the reason you give; but Haag's theorem and related results do, in fact, show that you cannot describe interacting quantum fields using the same Hilbert space that describes free quantum fields. Most treatments of QFT seem to more or less ignore these results and assume that there is some rigorous mathematical basis for the methods they describe.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: eoghan, vanhees71 and PeroK
If you are interested in, why FAPP one can ignore Haag's theorem in the usual perturbative treatment of QFTs, see

A. Duncan, The conceptual framework of quantum field theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby
@PeterDonis Very nice answer, now it is clear to me why the Hilbert space (Haag's theorem apart) is supposed to be the same.

@vanhees71 Nice book. I just had a look at its content on Amazon and it's definitely on my list once I will be done with the Schwartz!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and PeroK

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
844
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
10K