Ground State in Peskin and Schroeder

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the treatment of the ground state in the context of quantum field theory as presented in Peskin and Schroeder. Participants explore the implications of introducing an imaginary component to time in the evolution operator and its effects on the behavior of energy eigenstates, particularly in relation to the ground state energy and the propagator in vacuum QFT perturbation theory.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the terms in the evolution operator die off quicker with an imaginary component in time, suggesting a misunderstanding of the limit of complex numbers.
  • Another participant clarifies that the small imaginary term in time leads to exponential decay, while the real part results in oscillatory behavior.
  • A participant emphasizes the importance of renormalizing the Hamiltonian to set the ground state energy to zero, which affects the behavior of the energy eigenvalues.
  • There is a repeated emphasis on the necessity of adding an infinitesimal imaginary part to time for correct theoretical developments, particularly in relation to the propagator and adiabatic switching in LSZ reduction.
  • One participant requests further information on vacuum QFT and adiabatic switching, seeking references for deeper understanding.
  • Another participant recommends the classic textbook by Bjorken and Drell, specifically noting the second volume on quantum field theory as a valuable resource.
  • There is a discussion about which chapters in the recommended textbook are most relevant, with participants suggesting both chapters on Vacuum Expectation Values and S-Matrix and Perturbation Theory as important for study.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the importance of the imaginary component in time for theoretical developments, but there is no consensus on the initial question regarding the behavior of the terms in the evolution operator as time approaches infinity.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the behavior of energy eigenstates under complex time evolution and the implications of renormalization that may not be fully explored or resolved.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying quantum field theory, particularly in understanding the nuances of ground state treatment, propagators, and the LSZ reduction process.

Diracobama2181
Messages
70
Reaction score
3
TL;DR
I am having a little confusion regarding the limit taken in Peskin and Schroeders quantum field theory book in ch. 4.
In P&S, it is shown that $$e^{-iHT}\ket{0}=e^{-iH_{0}T}\ket{\Omega}\bra{\Omega}\ket{0}+\sum_{n\neq 0}e^{-iE_nT}\ket{n}\bra{n}\ket{0}$$.
It is then claimed that by letting $$T\to (\infty(1-i\epsilon)) $$ that the other terms die off much quicker than $$e^{-iE_0T}$$, but my question is why is this the case? For example, why wouldn't the other terms also die off quicker if we simply sent $$T\to \infty$$ instead? Perhaps there is something about the limit of complex numbers I'm not understanding. Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Nevermind, I think I figured it our. I mistakenly assumed the $$e^{-iE_n T}\to 0$$ as $$T\to \infty$$, but that is not the case, which is why the substitution is needed.
 
Yes, it's only the small imaginary term in T that leads to an e-x behavior. The real term just leads to oscillation.
 
It becomes much clearer by "renormalizing" the Hamiltonian such that ##E_0=0##, i.e., the ground state energy eigenvalue is set to 0 by shifting the total energy of the system (represented by the Hamilton operator) by adding a constant such that ##E_0=0##. Then all ##E_n>0##.

Now it is utmost important to add an infinitesimal imaginary part to ##T##, i.e., substituting ##T \rightarrow T-\mathrm{i} \epsilon##. This is crucial for all further developments of the theory to get the correct propagator (in vacuum QFT perturbation theory the time-ordered free-field propagator) and the correct "adiabatic switching" for the LSZ reduction. This is a pretty subtle point and should be very well studied!
 
vanhees71 said:
It becomes much clearer by "renormalizing" the Hamiltonian such that ##E_0=0##, i.e., the ground state energy eigenvalue is set to 0 by shifting the total energy of the system (represented by the Hamilton operator) by adding a constant such that ##E_0=0##. Then all ##E_n>0##.

Now it is utmost important to add an infinitesimal imaginary part to ##T##, i.e., substituting ##T \rightarrow T-\mathrm{i} \epsilon##. This is crucial for all further developments of the theory to get the correct propagator (in vacuum QFT perturbation theory the time-ordered free-field propagator) and the correct "adiabatic switching" for the LSZ reduction. This is a pretty subtle point and should be very well studied!

Can you perhaps say a bit more about vacuum QFT and adiabatic switching. Recently I saw these terms more frequently and would like to know more about them. Do you know a good reference to read about this subject?
 
That's one of the points which are very nicely and carefully presented in the classic textbook by Bjorken and Drell (of course the 2nd volume on quantum field theory; the 1st volume is not so much my favorite ;-)).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: M91
Do you also happen to know which chapter? I think its either: chapter 16 Vacuum Expectation Values and S-Matrix or, chapter 17 Perturbation Theory
 
I'd say both chapters are worth to be carefully studied. It's a pretty concise formulation of LSZ reduction and the perturbative evaluation of the S-matrix elements.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: M91

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
844
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K