How are correlation functions defined for non-uniform operator theories?

  • Thread starter Thread starter UndeadCat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions
UndeadCat
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hi all, this is a question about Green's functions (sometimes called corrolation functions), used in the LSZ reduction formula. They are defined in section 3.7 of http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft/three.pdf in two different (but equivalent) ways:
G(n)(x1, x2...xn):= <\Omega|T{\Phi1H\Phi2H...\PhinH}|\Omega> = <0|T{\Phi1\Phi2...\Phin}S|0>/<0|S|0> = sum of all connected Feynman graphs (where |\Omega> is the true vacuum of the interacting theory, normalized to H|\Omega> = 0; \PhinH = \Phi(xn) in the Heisenberg picture; T is the time-ordering operator and S is the scattering matrix). The link above has a very nice proof that these are all equivalent, but my question is: how, then, does one define the correlation functions for a theory where NOT all the operators are the same? At a guess, it would be defined as the above with a different choice of field operators as each combination for the LSZ formula requires...can anyone verify this or else tell me how such objects are calculated or where I can find out more?
Also, if anyone can point me in the direction of some resources where some of the phenomena mentioned related to Green's functions are calculated?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello

I am not totally sure I understood your question, and I couldn't access the link you posted (although I did take that course by David Tong, once upon a time!)

In general the greens / correlation functions used in the LSZ formula can involve different fields operators. I think Srednicki chapters 5-10 give a nice walkthrough from the LSZ formula to scattering amplitudes ( don't panic, very short chapters and available online : http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~mark/qft.html ).

You may find problem 9.5 particularly illuminating. It doesn't need path integrals, so may be more in line with Tong's treatment.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure but I would guess you'd would have something like this:
G(n,m)(x1, x2...xn ,y1, y2...ym) instead of
G(n)(x1, x2...xn)

in the single field case you have to specify the number of fields and in the two field case you specify the number of both fields. not sure if I answered your question
 
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...
Back
Top