Construction of a Hilbert space and operators on it

Fredrik
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
10,876
Reaction score
423
When quantizing a classical field theory, e.g. Klein-Gordon theory, the Hilbert space of one-particle states is taken to be a set of equivalence classes of (Lebesgue) measurable and square integrable solutions of the classical field equation, but how do you use the classical theory to construct operators on this Hilbert space?

I asked that question in a different way here (in the Topology & Geometry forum), but got no replies, so I'm trying again here.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Fredrik said:
When quantizing a classical field theory, e.g. Klein-Gordon theory, the Hilbert space of one-particle states is taken to be a set of equivalence classes of (Lebesgue) measurable and square integrable solutions of the classical field equation, but how do you use the classical theory to construct operators on this Hilbert space?

I asked that question in a different way here (in the Topology & Geometry forum), but got no replies, so I'm trying again here.

I have replied in the math thread.
 
Fredrik said:
When quantizing a classical field theory, e.g. Klein-Gordon theory, the Hilbert space of one-particle states is taken to be a set of equivalence classes of (Lebesgue) measurable and square integrable solutions of the classical field equation, but how do you use the classical theory to construct operators on this Hilbert space?

I think that this is a terrific question to ask -- developing field theory in terms of L^2 functions (Lebesgue-measurable, square-integrable functions) is not just an appealing conceptual aim, but it might provide hooks into some powerful techniques of functional analysis. As far as I know, it hasn't been done. The sticking point is always whether the mathematical formulation can be made consistent with perturbative QFT and renormalization, and to date that has only been possible under the framework of distributions over the Schwartz space, in which case the literature often refers to BPHZ renormalization. Two influential books on this topic are
* Bogoliubov & Shirkov, Intro to the theory of quantized fields, Wiley 1980
* Bogolubov, Logunov, Oksak \& Todorov, General Principles of Quantum Field Theory, Kluwer Academic 1990
which discuss the complete development of field theory, from free to interacting to perturbative expansion by Feynman diagrams and renormalization, in terms of distributions over the Schwartz space. The first is more pedagogical, the second more mathematically technical. Additionally, you might look at papers by Hepp or Zimmerman from the early 70s.

Extending the theory from Schwartz distributions to L^2 operators was, I think, an outstanding question of mathematical physics in the 70s, and remains an open question. Does anybody have an impression or advice on this?

Cheers,

Dave
 
Read "Reed & Simon: Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics" for a classic and you could look for "Arthur Jaffe" and "constructive quantum field theory" on google. He has some nice lecture notes hidden somewhere. It looks like the most modern way is to work on Sobolev spaces.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Back
Top