Graduate Correlation function of a Klein-Gordon field

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the correlation function of a Klein-Gordon field, focusing on the ground state and eigenstates of the Hamiltonian. The participants explore the implications of the Heisenberg picture and the behavior of the momentum operator on these states. A key point is the confusion surrounding why the term e^{iPx} disappears when evaluating the correlation function, with suggestions that it relates to the properties of the ground state. Additionally, the Lorentz invariance of the ground state is questioned, with the assertion that it leads to unobservable constant phases. The conversation concludes by emphasizing the convenience of normal ordering in quantum field theory.
Gaussian97
Homework Helper
Messages
683
Reaction score
412
TL;DR
Evaluating a correlation function for the Klein-Gordon field I found a term like ##\langle\Omega|\phi(x)|\lambda_{\vec{p}}\rangle## which should be equal to ##\langle\Omega|\phi(0)|\lambda_{\vec{p}}\rangle e^{-ipx}\left.\right|_{p^0=E_\vec{p}}##
First, let me introduce the notation; given a Hamiltonian ##H## and a momentum operator ##\vec{P}##, and writing ##P=(H,\vec{P})##. Let ##|\Omega\rangle## be the ground state of ##H##, ##|\lambda_\vec{0}\rangle## an eigenstate of ##H## with momentum 0, i.e. ##\vec{P}|\lambda_\vec{0}\rangle=0## and ##|\lambda_\vec{p}\rangle## a ##\vec{p}##-boost of ##|\lambda_\vec{0}\rangle##.

If ##\phi(x)## is the Klein-Gordon field, in the Heisenberg picture ##\phi(x)=e^{iPx}\phi(0)e^{-iPx}## and then $$\langle\Omega|\phi(x)|\lambda_{\vec{p}}\rangle=\langle\Omega|e^{iPx}\phi(0)e^{-iPx}|\lambda_{\vec{p}}\rangle$$. Then I understand that ##e^{-iPx}|\lambda_{\vec{p}}\rangle=e^{-ipx}|\lambda_{\vec{p}}\rangle\left.\right|_{p^0=E_\vec{p}}## because ##|\lambda_{\vec{p}}\rangle## is a ##\vec{p}##-boost of a eigenstate of ##H##. But the term ##e^{iPx}## disapears and I don't understand why. The easy answer would be to suppose that ##H|\Omega\rangle=\vec{P}|\Omega\rangle=0##, the second one I think one can argue that must be satisfied by the ground state, but not the first, in general ##H|\Omega\rangle=E_0|\Omega\rangle\neq 0##.

Also, I for another step I need to use that ##|\Omega\rangle## is Lorentz invariant, what I think makes sense, but also I'm not sure how to prove it, so maybe both problems are related.

Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Note that ##x## are c-number valued four-vector comonents and ##P## is the operator of total momentum. Now you have
$$\exp(-\mathrm{i} \hat{P} \cdot x)|\lambda_{\vec{p}} \rangle=\exp(-\mathrm{i} p \cdot \vec{x}) |\lambda_{\vec{p}} \rangle$$
and
$$\exp(-\mathrm{i} \hat{P} \cdot x)|\Omega \rangle=|\Omega \rangle.$$
Now use this to evaluate the one-point function in question.
 
vanhees71 said:
$$\exp(-\mathrm{i} \hat{P} \cdot x)|\Omega \rangle=|\Omega \rangle.$$
Now use this to evaluate the one-point function in question.

I don't see why ##e^{-\mathrm{i} \hat{P} \cdot x}|\Omega \rangle=|\Omega \rangle.## It's because even if the energy of ##|\Omega\rangle## is not zero it's simply a constant phase and then its unobservable?
 
Gaussian97 said:
I don't see why ##e^{-\mathrm{i} \hat{P} \cdot x}|\Omega \rangle=|\Omega \rangle.## It's because even if the energy of ##|\Omega\rangle## is not zero it's simply a constant phase and then its unobservable?
Here ##\hat{P}^{\mu}## is assumed to be the normal-ordered operator, so ##\hat{P}^{\mu}|\Omega \rangle=0##.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
Gaussian97 said:
I don't see why ##e^{-\mathrm{i} \hat{P} \cdot x}|\Omega \rangle=|\Omega \rangle.## It's because even if the energy of ##|\Omega\rangle## is not zero it's simply a constant phase and then its unobservable?
Indeed. You don't get anything new when assuming ray representations of the proper orthochronous Poincare group. All are equivalent to the usual unitary representations. That's why it's just convenient to normal order energy, momentum and angular momentum, i.e., to make the vacuum the state where all these additive conserved quantum numbers are 0.
 
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 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
967
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
975
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K