How Does QFT Describe or Predict the Position of a Particle?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter LarryS
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Particle Position Qft
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around how quantum field theory (QFT) describes or predicts the position of a particle, exploring the nature of particles in QFT, the concept of position as an observable, and the mathematical frameworks involved. The scope includes theoretical interpretations, conceptual clarifications, and some mathematical reasoning.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that in QFT, the position of a particle is not an observable, likening it to an index for quantum harmonic oscillators, and question how QFT predicts or describes a particle's position.
  • Others argue that there are no particles in QFT, suggesting that excitations of fields are what correspond to particles.
  • A participant explains that while the position operator in QFT is related to the momentum operator, it requires a Hermitian replacement known as the Newton-Wigner position operator, which varies for different types of particles.
  • Concerns are raised about defining a position operator for massless particles, particularly photons, indicating that fundamental problems exist in this area.
  • Some participants discuss the treatment of time and space in QFT, noting that both are treated as parameters rather than observables, which contrasts with standard quantum mechanics.
  • There is a mention of the mathematical complexities involved in QFT and the challenges faced by those new to the subject.
  • A participant presents a series of questions regarding the Hilbert space in QFT, the wave function for particle probability, and the path integral formalism, seeking validation of their understanding.
  • Another participant asserts that position is indeed an observable in quantum field theory, contradicting earlier claims.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether position is an observable in QFT, with some asserting it is not, while at least one participant claims it is. The discussion reflects multiple competing views and remains unresolved regarding the nature of position in QFT.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in defining position operators for massless particles and in the treatment of time and space within the framework of QFT. The discussion also highlights the complexity of the mathematical structures involved in QFT, which may not be fully resolved in the contributions presented.

  • #31
bhobba said:
In posting what I did I am thinking what I read in Srednicki page 10 which says it can be done - but is difficult - in fact he states:

'it turns out that any relativistic quantum physics that can be treated in one formalism can be treated in the other. Which we use is a matter of convenience and taste. And Quantum Field Theory, the formalism in which both position and time are both labels on operators, is much more convenient for most problems'

Perhaps you can clarify what is going on?
The formalism in which both space and time are operators is explained in string-theory books, and is summarized here:

http://www.physics.thetangentbundle.net/wiki/String_theory/relativistic_point_particle/action
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Avodyne said:
The formalism in which both space and time are operators is explained in string-theory books, and is summarized here:

http://www.physics.thetangentbundle.net/wiki/String_theory/relativistic_point_particle/action

The link doesn't explain that, it only talks about the classical action, there isn't even quantization yet. And the question was how it is in QFT, no?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
martinbn said:
The link doesn't explain that, it only talks about the classical action, there isn't even quantization yet.
True, but see
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0702060 [Found.Phys.39:1109-1138,2009]
especially Sec. 5.2.
 
  • #34
Avodyne said:
The formalism in which both space and time are operators is explained in string-theory books, and is summarized here:

http://www.physics.thetangentbundle.net/wiki/String_theory/relativistic_point_particle/action

In the first place this link is not about anything discussed here.

In the second place string theory explains nothing, that is the reason which is named TON (Theory Of Nothing) these days...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K