Hermitian operators in QM and QFT

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of Hermitian operators in quantum mechanics (QM) and quantum field theory (QFT), particularly focusing on the nature of field operators in QFT and their relationship to measurement. Participants explore the conceptual challenges of associating operators with experimental apparatus in the context of second quantization and spacetime points.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about treating Hermitian operators as "experimental apparatus" in QFT, particularly regarding the association of field operators with every point in space.
  • Others clarify that field operators are associated with spacetime points, and the presence of an operator does not imply a physical realization of an apparatus at that point.
  • A participant notes that in non-relativistic QM, the simultaneous measurement of position and momentum is problematic, suggesting that operators evolving in time do not necessarily correspond to actual measurements.
  • There is mention of using smeared field operators as a way to address the absurdity of having an apparatus at every point, with a smeared operator defined over a region rather than a point.
  • Some participants propose that smeared field operators could be treated as measurement devices associated with regions, rather than individual points in spacetime.
  • However, it is noted that only self-adjoint smeared operators can be considered measurement devices, with exceptions for certain fields like Fermion fields where only specific bilinears are observable.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretation of field operators as measurement devices, with some agreeing loosely while others emphasize conditions under which this may hold true. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these interpretations.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of operators and the unresolved nature of how these operators correspond to physical measurements in QFT.

WWCY
Messages
476
Reaction score
15
TL;DR
"Apparatus"? Or not?
I have always learned that a Hermitian operator in non-relativistic QM can be treated as an "experimental apparatus" ie unitary transformation, measurement, etc.

However this makes less sense to me in QFT. A second-quantised EM field for instance, has field operators associated with each spatial point; to think that there is some "apparatus" at every point in space seems slightly absurd (to me at least).

How I think of these field operators? Can I think of them as "fundamental" objects that (as part of a Hamiltonian) govern the evolution of Fock-space states by creating and annihilating particles (if so, how then does one think of the trajectory of a relativistic particle)? Are there any cases in which these field operators actually correspond to experimental apparatus?

Cheers.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
WWCY said:
A second-quantised EM field for instance, has field operators associated with each spatial point

No, associated with each spacetime point. See below.

WWCY said:
to think that there is some "apparatus" at every point in space seems slightly absurd (to me at least)

The fact that an operator appears in the math does not mean that operator has to be physically realized. A given quantum EM field operator corresponds to measuring the field at the particular spacetime point (some point in space at some instant of time) the operator is attached to. So to model measuring the quantum EM field at a particular point in space at a particular instant of time, you just pick the particular operator that is attached to that spacetime point and use that one to make predictions.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba and WWCY
WWCY said:
However this makes less sense to me in QFT. A second-quantised EM field for instance, has field operators associated with each spatial point; to think that there is some "apparatus" at every point in space seems slightly absurd (to me at least).

In non-relativistic QM, using the Heisenberg picture, the position and momentum operators evolve simultaneously in time. However, the idea of simultaneous position and momentum measurements is absurd. So the operator evolving in time does not correspond to the measurement being made.
 
WWCY said:
Summary: "Apparatus"? Or not?

However this makes less sense to me in QFT. A second-quantised EM field for instance, has field operators associated with each spatial point; to think that there is some "apparatus" at every point in space seems slightly absurd (to me at least)
##\phi(x)## is not an operator, it's smeared version is:
$$\phi\left(f\right) = \int{\phi\left(x\right)f\left(x\right)d^{4}x}$$
where ##f## is a function that decays quickly (I can be more precise if you want), possibly vanishing outside of a compact region. Thus there are operators associated with weighted regions, not points.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba, vanhees71 and dextercioby
Thanks for the replies

DarMM said:
##\phi(x)## is not an operator, it's smeared version is:
$$\phi\left(f\right) = \int{\phi\left(x\right)f\left(x\right)d^{4}x}$$
where ##f## is a function that decays quickly (I can be more precise if you want), possibly vanishing outside of a compact region. Thus there are operators associated with weighted regions, not points.
Demystifier said:
For that purpose you can us smeared field operators.

Can these smeared field-operators then be treated as "measurement devices" that are associated with a certain region rather than each point in spacetime?

Cheers.
 
WWCY said:
Can these smeared field-operators then be treated as "measurement devices" that are associated with a certain region rather than each point in spacetime?
Loosely speaking, yes.
 
WWCY said:
Can these smeared field-operators then be treated as "measurement devices" that are associated with a certain region rather than each point in spacetime?
If they are self-adjoint then loosely yes. Otherwise not, such as in the case of Fermion fields where only bilinears like ##\bar{\psi}\psi## are observable.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
9K