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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the relationship between wavefunctions and quantum fields in Quantum Field Theory (QFT). It establishes that fields in QFT are operator fields, specifically quantum oscillator operator fields, and that the vacuum state is devoid of particles except for virtual particles. The operator fields contain creation and annihilation operators, which can create particles from the vacuum state. The conversation highlights that wavefunctions do not apply in QFT due to the dynamic nature of particle creation and annihilation, emphasizing the importance of asymptotically free states and the wave-functional formalism as an alternative perspective.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) principles
  • Familiarity with operator fields and quantum oscillators
  • Knowledge of vacuum states and virtual particles
  • Basic grasp of wave-functional formalism
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the role of creation and annihilation operators in QFT
  • Explore the concept of asymptotically free states in QFT
  • Learn about the wave-functional formalism in Quantum Field Theory
  • Read B. Hatfield's "Quantum Field Theory of Point Particles and Strings" for in-depth understanding
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of Quantum Field Theory, and researchers interested in the foundational concepts of particle dynamics and field interactions in high-energy physics.

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   Reactions: DarMM
Thank you for answering. This is not super clear to me but I'll try to work on it.
 

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 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
7K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K