How Do Green Functions Relate to Boundary Conditions in Quantum Field Theory?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter robousy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions Green
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between Green functions and boundary conditions in the context of quantum field theory, specifically focusing on a massless scalar field confined between two parallel plates with Dirichlet boundary conditions. Participants explore the mathematical transition between different forms of Green functions and the concept of reduced Green functions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks clarification on how to derive a specific mathematical expression involving Green functions from a book, indicating a need for understanding Fourier transforms and the concept of a reduced Green function.
  • Another participant suggests that the "reduced" Green's function relates to separation-of-variables techniques, providing a framework for understanding how delta functions can be expressed in terms of Fourier transforms.
  • A different participant expresses confusion about assuming that the reduced Green function in certain dimensions is simply a delta function, questioning the validity of this assumption.
  • One participant corrects an earlier claim, emphasizing that the operator acting on the Green function should include delta functions for all dimensions, not just the Green function itself.
  • Another participant proposes that the physics is primarily contained in the z direction, suggesting that plane wave solutions can be expected in the x and t dimensions, which may justify the use of delta functions in those contexts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and assumptions regarding the nature of reduced Green functions and their mathematical representation. There is no consensus on the assumptions made about delta functions or the specific mathematical steps required to derive the expressions discussed.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge potential misunderstandings in the mathematical formulation and the implications of boundary conditions on the Green functions. There are unresolved questions regarding the assumptions made in the derivation process and the specific roles of different dimensions in the context of the problem.

robousy
Messages
332
Reaction score
1
Hey folks,

I'm trying to get a handle on my old Nemesis, Green functions. I have a massless scalar field confined between two parallel plates separated by a distance a (in the z dimension) and the field satisfies Dirichel BC's. Basically I'm trying to work from line 1 of a book to line 2 (K. Miltons the Casimir Effect p23).

'The Green function satisfies'

-\partial^2G(x,x')=\delta(x-x')

"We introduce a reduced Green function g(z,z) according to the Fourier Transform"

G(x,x')=\int\frac{d^dk}{(2\pi)^d}e^{i\vec{k}.(x-x')}\int\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}e^{-i\omega(t-t')}g(z,z')

This is all the book says so sorry of that's not much info. I'm fairly sure that \partial=\nabla+\frac{d}{dt}.

What I want to understand (and see the math for) is how to get from line 1 to line 2. I'm pretty sure that it involves Fourier transforms, but I would like to see it. Also, I don't understand the concept of a reduced green function. Can anyone either point me to a good reference, or better still explain how and why it is used.

I hope someone can walk me through this.

:)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know all the details of that particular problem, but what I remember from electrostatics is that the "reduced" Green's function is essentially a separation-of-variables technique. If we have, for some linear operator L,

LG(\vec x, \vec x') = \delta^3(\vec x - \vec x')

then we can write

\delta^3(\vec x - \vec x') = \delta(x - x') \, \delta(y - y') \, \delta(z - z')

(or we could use some other coordinate system, such as r, \phi, \theta, transforming to it with the proper Jacobian).

Given the boundary conditions, x and y are free, but z is bounded by the planes z=0 and z=a. So we can write

\delta(x - x') = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int dk_x \, e^{ik_x(x-x')}

which is just an identity using Fourier transforms (the integral is over the entire real line). We can do likewise in y, because y also has no boundaries. This leaves us:

LG = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^2} \int dk_x \, e^{ik_x(x-x')} \, \int dk_y \, e^{ik_y(x-x')} \, \delta(z - z')

My memory gets shaky at this point, but you might be able to see where to go. For L = \partial^2, L is pretty simple to invert for the two Fourier transforms. What's left is a function g(z, z') that needs to be solved for.
 
Thanks Ben. I think I actually realize what I don't understand now. Let's say our Geometry is in x,z and t. We can use techniques from Separation of variables to write our GF as:

G(x^\mu,x^\mu')=g(x,x')g(t,t')g(z,z')

Where the \musuperscript runs over x,z,t.

Ok up to here, but then the second line of my first post implies that

g(x,x')=\int\frac{dk}{2\pi}e^{ik.(x-x')}=\delta(x-x')
and
g(t,t')=\int\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}e^{i\omega.(t-t')}=\delta(t-t')

Ok, so here lies my problem. Why can I just assume that the reduced green function in x and t is just a delta function?
 
I may have made a slight mistake; I'm not sure. But you should have

\partial^2 G = \delta(x - x') \, \delta(y - y') \, \delta(z - z') \, \delta(t - t')

rather than just G on the left hand side. Once you have that, you can choose to represent some of those delta functions by their Fourier transforms (or Bessel function series, or what-have-you) in the frequency domain.

The reduced Green's function in a particular dimension is not a delta function; it is \partial^2g that is a delta function.
 
ok, I think it should be:



G(x,xs')=\int\frac{d^dk}{(2\pi)^d}e^{i\vec{k}.(x-x')}\int\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}e^{-i\omega(t-')}g(z,z')

because the physics is contained in the z direction so we just expect plane wave solutions in the x and t so we can replace them with delta functions. Then we put this expression for G into the first equation G''.

Thanks for your insight! :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K