From observable to operators in QFT

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the transition from observable quantities to operators in quantum field theory (QFT), exploring the implications of second quantization, the relationship between classical fields and quantum mechanics, and the foundational differences between standard quantum mechanics and QFT. Participants examine the conceptual underpinnings of these theories, including the treatment of time and space, and the nature of observables in both frameworks.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the term "second quantization" is misleading, suggesting it implies a two-step process that does not accurately reflect the transition to QFT.
  • There is a discussion about whether the standard Schrödinger equation can be interpreted as a field equation for classical fields, with questions raised about the nature of classical fields and their wave-like properties.
  • One participant notes that QFT can be viewed as a rewriting of standard quantum mechanics for many identical particles, indicating that the same theory can be expressed in different forms.
  • Another participant emphasizes the foundational differences between standard quantum mechanics, which relies on Galilean transformations, and QFT, which treats space and time on equal footing, leading to the assignment of operators instead of values to points in space.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of replacing fields and their conjugate momenta with operators, questioning how this process leads to quantization.
  • Some participants reference symmetry considerations in Lagrangian field theory and their role in determining the dynamics of fields.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of second quantization and its implications for understanding QFT. There is no consensus on the clarity of terminology or the foundational aspects of the theories discussed, indicating ongoing debate and exploration of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight that the terminology and foundational assumptions in QFT may not be universally agreed upon, and there are unresolved questions regarding the nature of classical fields and their quantization.

  • #61
Yes, that's the non-relativistic case. Note that this is a bit incomplete. One has to carefully check that the suggested operators fulfill the operator algebra, i.e., the commutation relations following from their group-theoretical meaning according to Noether's theorem. For non-relativistic QT this is the Lie algebra of a central extension of the covering group of the Galilei group, and for relativistic QT that of the covering group of the Poincare group, SL(2,C).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: atyy

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
896
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K