Field Theory Partition Function

Click For Summary
The partition function in quantum field theory (QFT) is expressed as Z=\langle 0 | e^{-i\hat H T} |0\rangle, where |0\rangle represents the vacuum state. Understanding this function requires recognizing that the Hamiltonian is typically split into a free part and an interacting part, with the vacuum state defined for the free Hamiltonian. The vacuum state is complex, as interactions can create virtual particles, making the partition function non-trivial when interaction terms are included. Without these terms, the calculation appears uninteresting, as it reduces to a trivial expression. Thus, incorporating interaction terms is essential for meaningful results in QFT.
unchained1978
Messages
91
Reaction score
0
The 'partition function' in QFT is written as Z=\langle 0 | e^{-i\hat H T} |0\rangle, but I'm having a difficult time really understanding this. I'm assuming that |0\rangle represents the vacuum state with no particles present. If that's the case, and the Hamiltonian acting on such a state would just produce the ground state energy, which can be defined to be zero. How does this give you anything interesting then? If e^{-i\hat H T} |0\rangle=e^{-i (0)T}|0\rangle, then I fail to see how this quantity is of any use. (I know that by adding a source to the Hamiltonian, you can calculate the interaction energy of two particles, but for a source free H I'm not sure what it does). Also, if you have a Hamiltonian of the form :\hat H:=\sum_{k}\hat a^{\dagger}_{k}\hat a_{k}, where \hat a_{k}|0\rangle=0, then I really don't get what's going on here when you write out Z. Does it only make sense to calculate this when you have a source term added?
Thanks in advance for any help
 
Physics news on Phys.org
unchained1978 said:
The 'partition function' in QFT is written as Z=\langle 0 | e^{-i\hat H T} |0\rangle, but I'm having a difficult time really understanding this. I'm assuming that |0\rangle represents the vacuum state with no particles present.

The vacuum state is a very complicated issue in QFT. Since we usually can't solve the interacting theory exactly, we resort to perturbation theory, where

$$ H = H_0 + H_I,$$

with ##H_0## the free Hamiltonian and ##H_I## the interacting part. There are then really two vacuum states that we can define. For example, in Peskin & Schroder, ##|0\rangle## is the vacuum for the free Hamiltonian, while they use ##|\Omega\rangle## to stand for the vacuum of the full theory.

If that's the case, and the Hamiltonian acting on such a state would just produce the ground state energy, which can be defined to be zero. How does this give you anything interesting then? If e^{-i\hat H T} |0\rangle=e^{-i (0)T}|0\rangle, then I fail to see how this quantity is of any use. (I know that by adding a source to the Hamiltonian, you can calculate the interaction energy of two particles, but for a source free H I'm not sure what it does). Also, if you have a Hamiltonian of the form :\hat H:=\sum_{k}\hat a^{\dagger}_{k}\hat a_{k}, where \hat a_{k}|0\rangle=0, then I really don't get what's going on here when you write out Z. Does it only make sense to calculate this when you have a source term added?
Thanks in advance for any help

The Hamiltonian really isn't :\hat H:=\sum_{k}\hat a^{\dagger}_{k}\hat a_{k}, rather the normal-ordered free Hamiltonian has this form. Along with the normal-ordering, we're typically dropping the zero-point energy of the oscillators, so we can define the zero of energy by choosing ##H_0 |0\rangle =0##. However, once we do this, the interaction terms generally are not normal ordered, so ##H_I|0\rangle \neq 0##. The interactions can create virtual particles from the vacuum (in such a way that all charges are conserved). Therefore, the partition function is generally non-trivial and corresponds to a sum over so-called bubble diagrams, which have no external lines.
 
Thank you, I didn't think too much about what the Hamiltonian really is. Including the interaction terms gives you a non-trivial calculation, and I think I overlooked the addition of that to the total Hamiltonian.
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
928
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K