A Confusion about creation/annihilation operators with interaction

gasgas
Messages
4
Reaction score
1
I'm currently going through Peskin and Schroeder's Intro to QFT textbook, chapter 4.2 "Perturbation Expansion of Correlation Functions".

So we use the evolution of an operator in the Heisenberg picture from some time t0 to an arbitrary time t>t0 assuming we know how the field looks at t0. Then we only keep the dominant case with no interactions, so this field is then the standard field in the interaction picture with a diagonalizible Hamiltonian (in the book it is a real scalar field with phi-4 interaction).

I am now confused because my professor commented in lecture that in the Fourier expansion of the field at t0 the operators a and a† do not have to be the usual annihilation and creation operators of the free field, but they have to be in order to explicitly calculate the field in the interaction picture. Do we then assume that t0 is far away enough in the past where there is no interaction and can use the results for a free theory?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This question can be answered at two levels, abstract theoretical and practical.

At the abstract theoretical level ##t_0## can be arbitrary. The interaction picture is a unitary transformation that interpolates between the Heisenberg picture (where only operators depend on ##t##) and Schrodinger picture (where only states depend on ##t##). In the interaction picture both depend on ##t##, the operators evolve by the free Hamiltonian and states by the interaction Hamiltonian. The ##t##-dependence of matrix elements of operators does not depend on the picture.

At the practical level, ultimately the goal is to compute scattering and decay amplitudes, so eventually ##t_0## is put far into the past where particles are "free". We do that because that makes the computations easier and happens to be sufficient for computing things that can actually be measured in most real experiments, at least in particle physics.

Speaking of the ##t##-dependence of ##a## and ##a^{\dagger}## operators, it depends on the picture you use. In the Heisenberg picture they have a complicated dependence on ##t##, so they are not the usual free destruction and creation operators. By contrast, in the interaction picture, they are the usual ##t##-independent free destruction and creation operators.
 
Last edited:
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Back
Top