Undergrad How to get the wavefunction of a single particle in QFT?

Click For Summary
In quantum field theory (QFT), fields are understood as operator fields, specifically quantum oscillator operator fields, with the vacuum state representing a condition devoid of particles. The operator fields include creation and annihilation operators, allowing for the creation of particles from the vacuum state. The discussion raises questions about whether the result of applying the operator field to the vacuum state yields a wavefunction for a single particle and whether a wavefunction exists for the vacuum state itself. It concludes that wavefunctions do not apply in QFT due to the dynamic nature of particle creation and annihilation, emphasizing that true single-particle states are represented differently. The wave-functional formalism offers an alternative perspective, akin to wave mechanics, but remains less commonly known.
DoobleD
Messages
259
Reaction score
20
TL;DR
In QFT, can I create a single particle wavefunction by doing ##\Psi(x,t)\left|0\right\rangle##?
Hi folks,

I'm trying to get a grasp on some of the basic concepts of QFT. Specifically, I'm trying to picture what are the actual fields of QFT and how they relate to wavefunctions. There are already many helpful posts about those concepts, here and in other places, but some points are fuzzy for me.

So it seems that in QFT:
- the fields are operator fields, and more specifically, quantum oscillator operator fields;
- the ground state is called the "vacuum state" and is devoid of particles (appart from virtual particles with short lifetimes due to the time/energy HUP), unlike in QM where states describe at least 1 particle.

I'm fine with the above. I've also read that the operator fields contain creation and annihiliation operators and this can be used to create a particle from the vacuum state, like so (##\Psi## being my operator field) : ##\Psi(x,t)\left|0\right\rangle##.

My (probably naïve) questions are then:
- is the result of ##\Psi(x,t)\left|0\right\rangle## a wavefunction ##\Phi(x,t)## (ignoring the energy eigenvalue factor) for the newly created single particle localized around the choosed ##x## position?
- is there a wavefunction for the vacuum state? I'd be tempted to say it's ##\Phi(x,t) = 0##, meaning there's a 0 probability of finding a particle anywhere, but then ##\Psi(x,t)\left|0\right\rangle## would be ##0## too.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, wave functions do not make sense in QFT since QFT describes not a situation, where you have a fixed number of particles but you can create and destroy them in interactions, and that's why it's the natural description for collisions at relativistic energies (despite all the much more formal impossibilities of a first-quantization description of interacting relativistic particles).

A true single-particle state is something like
$$|\Phi,t \rangle =\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \Phi(\vec{x}) \hat{\psi}^{(+) \dagger}(t,\vec{x})|0 \rangle,$$
where ##\Phi## is some square-integrable function and ##\hat{\psi}^{(+)## is the positive-frequency part in the mode decomposition of free (sic!) fields.

There's no particle interpretation for states that are not asymptotically free states.

A very little known formalism that comes in an analogy way close to a "wave-mechanics formulation" is the wave-functional formalism of QFT, which you can find, e.g., in

B. Hatfield, Quantum Field Theory of Point Particles and Strings, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts (1992).
 
  • Like
Likes DarMM
Thank you for answering. This is not super clear to me but I'll try to work on it.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K