Field theory plane wave volume integral

In summary, the conversation discusses the use of integration over infinite spaces in quantum field theory and its limitations. It also introduces the concept of a finite volume, represented by a cubic box with periodic boundary conditions, to avoid issues with continuous single-particle momentum spectra. The plane-wave mode functions in this case are given by u_{\vec{p}}(\vec{x})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{V}} \exp(\mathrm{i} \vec{p} \cdot \vec{x}), which are orthonormal in the Hilbert space L^2(V). When taking the limit of an infinite volume, the momenta become continuous and the mode functions need to be normalized as a \delta distribution. This conversation also mentions the use
  • #1
center o bass
560
2
Hi! I'm used to integrating over infinite spaces when working with QFT so far, but in an exercise I stumbled across a statement that

[tex] \int_V d^3x e^{-i \vec x \cdot (\vec p - \vec p')} = V \delta_{\vec p \vec p'} [/tex]

It is clear that this is okay when p = p', but it does not seem to make sense when this is not the case. I would however agree that it's approximately true when V is large. Is this what is meant by this statement? Is it a large V approximation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I guess so.
 
  • #3
The integral of eipx is zero if you integrate over a complete cycle, e.g from x = 0 to x = 2π, or more generally n complete cycles. Usually what they have in mind is that V represents a cube whose sides are length L = 2nπ.
 
  • #4
To make this a bit more clear: Usually you start the quantization problem of free fields within a finite volume in order to avoid trouble with the continuous single-particle momentum spectrum when dealing with the whole [itex]\mathbb{R}^3[/itex]. This is an example for a regularization you will have to deal with a lot in quantum field theory.

The most simple way is to use a cubic box with length [itex]L[/itex] and periodic boundary conditions, i.e., you assume (e.g., for a scalar field) [itex]\phi(\vec{x})=\phi(\vec{x}+L \vec{e}_i)[/itex] with [itex]i \in \{1,2,3\}[/itex].

Then the plane-wave mode functions are given by
[tex]u_{\vec{p}}(\vec{x})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{V}} \exp(\mathrm{i} \vec{p} \cdot \vec{x})[/tex]
with [itex]V=L^3[/itex]. These functions are orthonormal in the Hilbert space [itex]L^2(V)[/itex] since due to the boundary conditions the momenta can only take the discrete values
[tex]\vec{p}=\frac{2 \pi}{L} \vec{n}, \quad \vec{n} \in \mathbb{Z}^3.[/tex]
This means
[tex]\int_{V} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \; u_{\vec{p}'}^*(\vec{x}) u_{\vec{p}}(\vec{x}) = \frac{1}{V} \int_V \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \exp[\mathrm{i} \vec{x}(\vec{p}-\vec{p}')]=\delta_{\vec{p},\vec{p}'}.[/tex]
Here, [itex]\delta_{\vec{p},\vec{p}'}[/itex] is a usual Kronecker symbol which is 1 if [itex]\vec{p}=\vec{p}'[/itex] and [itex]0[/itex] otherwise, with the momenta running over the above given discrete values.

If you take the limit [itex]L \rightarrow \infty[/itex] the momenta become continuous, i.e., [itex]\vec{p} \in \mathbb{R}^3[/itex], and you have to normalize the mode functions "as a [itex]\delta[/itex] distribution", i.e., you have to set
[tex]u_{\vec{p}}(\vec{x})=\frac{1}{(2 \pi)^{3/2}} \exp(\mathrm{i} \vec{p} \cdot \vec{x}),[/tex]
so that
[tex]\int_{\mathrm{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \; u_{\vec{p'}}^*(\vec{x}) u_{\vec{p}}(\vec{x}) = \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^3} \int_{\mathrm{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \; \exp[\mathrm{i} \vec{x} \cdot (\vec{p}-\vec{p}')]=\delta^{(3)}(\vec{p}-\vec{p}').[/tex]
Of course plane waves are no normalizable states but generalized states in the sense of distributions!
 
  • #5
vanhees71 said:
To make this a bit more clear: Usually you start the quantization problem of free fields within a finite volume in order to avoid trouble with the continuous single-particle momentum spectrum when dealing with the whole [itex]\mathbb{R}^3[/itex]. This is an example for a regularization you will have to deal with a lot in quantum field theory.

The most simple way is to use a cubic box with length [itex]L[/itex] and periodic boundary conditions, i.e., you assume (e.g., for a scalar field) [itex]\phi(\vec{x})=\phi(\vec{x}+L \vec{e}_i)[/itex] with [itex]i \in \{1,2,3\}[/itex].

Then the plane-wave mode functions are given by
[tex]u_{\vec{p}}(\vec{x})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{V}} \exp(\mathrm{i} \vec{p} \cdot \vec{x})[/tex]
with [itex]V=L^3[/itex]. These functions are orthonormal in the Hilbert space [itex]L^2(V)[/itex] since due to the boundary conditions the momenta can only take the discrete values
[tex]\vec{p}=\frac{2 \pi}{L} \vec{n}, \quad \vec{n} \in \mathbb{Z}^3.[/tex]
This means
[tex]\int_{V} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \; u_{\vec{p}'}^*(\vec{x}) u_{\vec{p}}(\vec{x}) = \frac{1}{V} \int_V \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \exp[\mathrm{i} \vec{x}(\vec{p}-\vec{p}')]=\delta_{\vec{p},\vec{p}'}.[/tex]
Here, [itex]\delta_{\vec{p},\vec{p}'}[/itex] is a usual Kronecker symbol which is 1 if [itex]\vec{p}=\vec{p}'[/itex] and [itex]0[/itex] otherwise, with the momenta running over the above given discrete values.

If you take the limit [itex]L \rightarrow \infty[/itex] the momenta become continuous, i.e., [itex]\vec{p} \in \mathbb{R}^3[/itex], and you have to normalize the mode functions "as a [itex]\delta[/itex] distribution", i.e., you have to set
[tex]u_{\vec{p}}(\vec{x})=\frac{1}{(2 \pi)^{3/2}} \exp(\mathrm{i} \vec{p} \cdot \vec{x}),[/tex]
so that
[tex]\int_{\mathrm{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \; u_{\vec{p'}}^*(\vec{x}) u_{\vec{p}}(\vec{x}) = \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^3} \int_{\mathrm{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \; \exp[\mathrm{i} \vec{x} \cdot (\vec{p}-\vec{p}')]=\delta^{(3)}(\vec{p}-\vec{p}').[/tex]
Of course plane waves are no normalizable states but generalized states in the sense of distributions!


Ah, thanks a lot for making this a bit more clear. So it's a box. I'm reading Mandl and Shaw, but the authors have a tendency to hide a lot of details. A couple of questions to your response;

What kind of troubles can arise when dealing with continuous momentum spectra?

the plane wave mode functions, are they solutions to the Klein-Gordon equation, or any differential equation? I know they are complete, but how are they used in field theory?

When going to the continuum case for which I am more familiar, would it be correct to say that [tex] 1/\sqrt{V} \to 1/(2\pi)^{1/2}[/tex] and [tex] \delta_{\vec p, \vec p'} \to \delta^{(3)} (\vec p - \vec p')?[/tex]

Thanks again! :)
 
  • #6
If you study QFT (I think Mandl and Shaw isn't so bad, but I've not looked into it for quite some time; my recommendation for beginners is usually Ryder and for advanced students Weinberg's three-volume book, which is for sure the best), the first time where you really encounter trouble with the full-space treatment is when it comes to the calculation of cross sections. This gives you S-matrix elements with an "energy-momentum conserving [itex]\delta[/itex] distribution":
[tex]S_{fi} =\mathrm{i} T_{fi} (2 \pi)^4 \delta^{(4)}(p-p').[/tex]
Of course, the [itex]\delta[/itex] distribution is rather a feature than a bug, but it's making trouble when you want to calculate the cross section, because you must formally take the S-matrix element's modulus squared, and the square of a [itex]\delta[/itex] distribution doesn't make sense whatsoever.

There are (at least) two ways out:

(a) the physics solution (a bit tedious) is to start not with plane-wave asymptotically free in states for the colliding particles but with the realistic description of asymptotically free wave packets. Then everything becomes unproblematic and at the very end you find that you simply do not have to square the [itex](2\pi)^4 \delta[/itex] but only the regular T-matrix element and put only one facgtor [itex](2 \pi)^4 \delta^{(4)}(p-p')[/itex] into your cross section formula (or transition matrix element for that matter). For a very careful treatment of this solution see Peskin/Schroeder, Introduction to Quantum Field Theory (which book must be read with great care, because it's pretty sloppy at other places, but for this (and not only this) issue it's just great).

(b) the mathematics solution (elegant but not very intuitive) is to regularize the problem by taking a large finite four-dimensional volume, where large means it should be large compared all considered wavelengths of the particle's wave function (in both the initial and the final states under consideration). Then you calculate the transition-matrix elements, convert them to rates per volume by deviding through the four volume and then (!) take the infinite-volume limit.

Taking this limit among other things means that all sums over three-momenta have to be substituted by integrals. If you take your three volume very large, of course the possible momenta in the single-particle plane-wave solution become continuous and any momentum-volume element [itex]\mathrm{\mathrm{d}}^3 \vec{p}[/itex] contains [itex][L/(2 \pi)]^3 \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{p}[/itex] momentum states. Thus in the limit [itex]L \rightarrow \infty[/itex] you formally set
[tex]\sum_{\vec{p}} \rightarrow V \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \frac{\mathrm{\mathrm{d}}^3 \vec{p}}{(2 \pi)^3},[/tex]
where [itex]V[/itex] means a fictitious spatial volume. In the infinite-volume limit, however such sums make only sense if you go over to a "density" rather than a absolute number, and thus you divide this "substitution rule" by [itex]L^3[/itex], and then everything makes sense for densities, i.e., the correct limit it
[tex]\frac{1}{V} \sum_{\vec{p}} \rightarrow \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \frac{\mathrm{d}^3 \vec{p}}{(2 \pi)^3} \quad \text{for} \quad V \rightarrow \infty.[/tex]
 

1. What is the purpose of using a field theory plane wave volume integral?

The purpose of using a field theory plane wave volume integral is to calculate the total energy or other physical quantities associated with a plane wave in a given volume. This is important in studying electromagnetic and acoustic waves, as well as other types of waves in fields such as quantum mechanics and fluid dynamics.

2. How is a field theory plane wave volume integral calculated?

A field theory plane wave volume integral is calculated by integrating the squared magnitude of the plane wave over the given volume. This involves taking into account the spatial variation of the wave and the properties of the medium through which it is propagating.

3. What is the difference between a field theory plane wave volume integral and a surface integral?

A field theory plane wave volume integral is used to calculate the total energy or other physical quantities associated with a plane wave in a given volume. On the other hand, a surface integral is used to calculate the flux of a vector field through a closed surface. While both involve integration, they are used for different purposes and in different contexts.

4. What are some applications of field theory plane wave volume integrals?

Field theory plane wave volume integrals have a wide range of applications in physics and engineering. They are commonly used in studying electromagnetic and acoustic waves, as well as in quantum mechanics and fluid dynamics. They are also important in fields such as optics, antenna theory, and signal processing.

5. Are there any limitations to using field theory plane wave volume integrals?

While field theory plane wave volume integrals are a powerful tool for studying waves, they do have some limitations. They are most accurate for linear waves in homogeneous media, and may not accurately capture the behavior of nonlinear or complex waves. Additionally, they may be difficult to calculate for certain types of waves, such as those with a highly non-uniform spatial distribution.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
557
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
113
Views
10K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
585
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
819
Replies
8
Views
561
Replies
7
Views
759
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top