Difference between a classical and quantum field theory?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the fundamental differences between classical and quantum field theories, specifically focusing on the process of quantization. It establishes that quantization transforms classical field amplitudes and their conjugate momenta into operators on a Hilbert space, leading to the imposition of commutation relations such as \([\phi(\mathbf{x}),\pi(\mathbf{y})] = i\delta^{(3)}(\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y})\). The equivalence of canonical quantization and path integral formalism is highlighted, referencing Nelson's theorem, which connects moments of a random Euclidean classical field theory to quantum field theory properties. This discussion clarifies how counting operators and the algebra of raising and lowering operators differentiate quantum field theories from their classical counterparts.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics and field theory concepts
  • Familiarity with canonical quantization and path integral formalism
  • Knowledge of operator algebra and Hilbert spaces
  • Basic grasp of Wightman axioms and their implications
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the canonical quantization procedure in detail
  • Explore the path integral formalism and its applications in quantum field theory
  • Investigate Nelson's theorem and its implications for quantum fields
  • Learn about the Wightman-Garding reconstruction theorem and its significance
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, particularly those specializing in quantum mechanics and field theory, as well as students and researchers seeking to deepen their understanding of the distinctions between classical and quantum frameworks in theoretical physics.

gato_
Messages
116
Reaction score
0
This may be a very basic question, but I've had now some background on the quantum theory, and I think I am missing something. Roughly speaking, I feel like the main difference is that quantizing involves going from field amplitudes to counting operators, implying that a quantum process involves exciting discrete lumps of energy. What I don't understand is how this is reflected on, say, the canonical quantization procedure. Take for example non relativistic theory:

[tex][q_{i},p_{j}]=i\hbar \delta_{ij}[/tex]

I don't see how that adds any restriction in a classical field theory. If you make the transition from a point particle to a field, then p is still the infinitesimal generator of translations, leading naturally to [tex]p_{i}=-i\hbar \partial_{i}[/tex], so for the field the relation is satisfied trivially. The transition to creator/anihilator operators can be done from the position/momentum ones, so they contain the same information. Why then counting operators lead to a different field theory?
Moreover, why are canonical quantization and path integral formalism equivalent?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
gato_ said:
The transition to creator/anihilator operators can be done from the position/momentum ones, so they contain the same information. Why then counting operators lead to a different field theory?
Moreover, why are canonical quantization and path integral formalism equivalent?
Quantum Field theory involves changing ##\phi## the classical field and its conjugate momentum ##\pi## from being dynamical variables (generically sections of fiber bundles) to being operators on a Hilbert space. We then impose the following condition on these operators:
$$\left[\phi(\mathbf{x}),\pi(\mathbf{y})\right] = i\delta^{\left(3\right)}\left(\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}\right)$$

These conditions imply that the Fourier amplitudes of the free quantum field, now operators since the fields are, have the algebra of raising and lowering operators.

Why the canonical and path integral formalisms are equivalent is due to a result called the Nelson's theorem. This demonstrates that the moments of a random Euclidean classical field theory can be analytically extended to a set of complex functions. These functions then can be proven to inherit properties from the moments on Euclidean space that imply they have boundary values which are distributions on (tensor products of) Minkowski space.

These distributions can then be seen to obey the Wightman axioms and thus from the Wightman-Garding reconstruction theorem are the correlation functions of a quantum field theory obeying the Wightman-Garding axioms.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K