Computation of propagation amplitudes for KG field

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the computation of propagation amplitudes for the Klein-Gordon field in quantum field theory. A key equation presented illustrates the propagation amplitude as the vacuum expectation value of the product of field operators. Participants clarify that the term involving the annihilation operator acting on the vacuum does not vanish, as it is the creation operator that annihilates the vacuum bra. Additionally, confusion arises regarding terms with only creation operators, which also vanish when properly considering the bra-ket notation. The main takeaway is that the only non-vanishing term in the amplitude calculation is the one involving the product of annihilation and creation operators, leading to a delta function result.
Theage
Messages
11
Reaction score
1
Note: I'm posting this in the Quantum Physics forum since it doesn't really apply to HEP or particle physics (just scalar QFT). Hopefully this is the right forum.

In Peskin and Schroeder, one reaches the following equation for the spacetime Klein-Gordon field:
$$\phi(x,t)=\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2E_p}}\Big(a(p)e^{-ip\cdot x}+a^\dagger(p)e^{ip\cdot x}\Big)$$
Then they say that the propagation amplitude for a particle to go from a spacetime point x to a spacetime point y is \langle 0\vert\phi(x)\phi(y)\vert 0\rangle where the ket |0> is the vacuum. I understand this up to here. But then they start computing it as follows (equation 2.50):
$$\langle 0\vert\phi(x)\phi(y)\vert 0\rangle = \int\frac{d^3p\,d^3q}{(2\pi)^6}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{E_{p}E_{p'}}}\Big(a(p)e^{-ipx}+a^\dagger(p)e^{ipx}\Big)\Big(a(q)e^{-iqy}+a^\dagger(q)e^{iqy}\Big)$$

Clearly there will now be four terms when you expand the parentheses, and the book claims that all of these vanish except for the term with \langle 0\vert a(p)a^\dagger(q)\vert 0\rangle. Two questions:

a) Wouldn't this term vanish also since a(p) kills the vacuum bra, producing a zero?

b) Why doesn't the term with a^\dagger(p)a^\dagger(q) stay? In that term there are no annihilation operators to kill the vacuum, so surely the term should vanish.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Theage said:
a) Wouldn't this term vanish also since a(p) kills the vacuum bra, producing a zero?

No. ##a_p## annihilates ##|0\rangle## which clearly means ##a^{\dagger}_p## annihilates ##\langle 0|##, not ##a_p##.

Theage said:
b) Why doesn't the term with a^\dagger(p)a^\dagger(q) stay? In that term there are no annihilation operators to kill the vacuum, so surely the term should vanish.

See above.
 
  • Like
Likes Theage
You forgot to "sandwich" the right-hand side of your equation between ##\langle 0|## and ##|0 \rangle##. Then it becomes immediately clear that all expressions with a annihilation operator acting to the right and a creation operator acting to the left (it becomes an annihilation operator when letting it act on the left argument of a scalar product) to the vacuum state, gives 0. The only non-vanishing term is thus indeed
$$\langle 0|a(p) a^{\dagger}(q) 0 \rangle =\langle a^{\dagger}(p) 0|a^{\dagger}(q)0 \rangle=(2 \pi)^3 \delta^{(3)}(\vec{q}-\vec{p}).$$
 
Last edited:
Again, it's all due to the damn bra-ket notation which is confusing. The equation should read:

## \langle 0, a (p) a^{\dagger} (q) 0\rangle = \langle a^{\dagger} (p) 0, a^{\dagger}(q)0\rangle ##
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K