How Does Wick's Theorem Apply to Time-Independent Bose Operators?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Wick's theorem to time-independent Bose operators, specifically in the context of a problem from "QFT for the Gifted Amateur." Participants are attempting to interpret the question regarding the calculation of time-ordered products of operators.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are questioning the clarity of the problem statement and whether it implies the need for time-ordering in the calculation. There is a suggestion to calculate the time-ordered product of specific operators, and some participants reflect on the assumptions made in similar contexts, such as conformal field theory.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants sharing their interpretations and assumptions about the problem. Some guidance has been offered regarding the necessity of time-ordering for Wick's theorem to apply, but there is no explicit consensus on the interpretation of the problem.

Contextual Notes

There are concerns about the problem being well-posed, particularly regarding the relevance of time-ordering for operators that do not depend on time. Participants are also referencing external materials for further clarification.

PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
2025 Award
Messages
29,618
Reaction score
21,431
Homework Statement
Use Wick's Theorem to express the string Bose operators ##\hat a_p \hat a_q^{\dagger} \hat a_k^{\dagger}## in terms of normal ordered fields and contractions.
Relevant Equations
Wick's Theorem:
$$T[ABC] = N[ABC + \text{all possible contractions of ABC}]$$
This is problem 18.3 from QFT for the gifted amateur. I must admit I'm struggling to interpret what this question is asking. Chapter 18 has applied Wick's theorem to calculate vacuum expectation values etc. But, there is nothing to suggest how it applies to a product of operators.

Does the question simply mean to calculate ##T[\hat a_p \hat a_q^{\dagger} \hat a_k]##?

Any help interpreting the question would be good. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
My first impuls was to look up the typos in the book, to see if he just missed a T. What I found instead was this sentence in someone's (personal) solutions:

"In these three problems, L&B don’t say explicitly that we’re dealing with time-ordered products, but I assume we must be as otherwise Wick’s theorem doesn’t apply."

I want to agree with this, I also don't see any other way this exercise would make any sense. I guess, it's not too uncommen though. I recently learned some conformal field theory, where (in radial quantisation) T turns into R (radial ordering), which is also just always "assumed" and not explicitely written out.

[Quote taken from: https://www.physicspages.com/Lancaster%20QFT.html (see exercise 18.3)]
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JD_PM and PeroK
McFisch said:
My first impuls was to look up the typos in the book, to see if he just missed a T. What I found instead was this sentence in someone's (personal) solutions:

"In these three problems, L&B don’t say explicitly that we’re dealing with time-ordered products, but I assume we must be as otherwise Wick’s theorem doesn’t apply."

I want to agree with this, I also don't see any other way this exercise would make any sense. I guess, it's not too uncommen though. I recently learned some conformal field theory, where (in radial quantisation) T turns into R (radial ordering), which is also just always "assumed" and not explicitely written out.

[Quote taken from: https://www.physicspages.com/Lancaster%20QFT.html (see exercise 18.3)]
Thanks for this. It becomes clearer in the next chapter. Using the interaction picture to evaluate the scattering matrix, the creation operator is applied as some time ##-t## and the annihilation operators are applied at some time ##t## in the limit as ##t \rightarrow \infty##. I assume that is what is implied here.
 

Similar threads

Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K