How to normalize wave functions in QFT? such as \lambda \phi 4 theory?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the normalization of wave functions in quantum field theory (QFT), specifically in the context of the \(\lambda \phi^4\) theory. Participants explore the differences between normalization in quantum mechanics and QFT, the interpretation of fields, and the implications for calculations involving field operators.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that in quantum mechanics, wave functions are normalized using \(\int |\phi|^2 dx^3 = 1\), but questions how fields in QFT are normalized, suggesting alternatives like \(\int |\phi|^4 dx^4 = 1\) or \(\int |\phi|^4 dx^3 = 1\).
  • Another participant argues that fields in QFT are not states and therefore do not require normalization, while states in QFT are assumed to be normalized.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that if one aims to solve the \(\lambda \phi^4\) equation similarly to the Dirac equation, normalization should be applied, referencing the normalization of free particle solutions in quantum mechanics.
  • It is proposed that normalization of a field is only necessary if the field is interpreted as a probability density amplitude, which is typically not the case for the field \(\phi\) in \(\phi^4\) theory.
  • A participant explains that normalization of field operators in QFT is defined through equal-time commutation relations, providing a specific relation involving the canonical momentum \(\Pi\) and discussing normalization in the context of asymptotically free states and Feynman diagrams.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether normalization is necessary for fields in QFT, with no consensus reached on the appropriate approach or interpretation.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the assumptions underlying the normalization of fields and the interpretation of fields as probability amplitudes. The discussion also touches on the implications of wave-function renormalization in external legs of Feynman diagrams.

mings6
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
In quantum mechanics, most wave functions are normalized with \int |\phi|^2 dx^3 =1. But I did not see any field in the quantum field theory is normalized. I understand they maybe just plain waves and does not need to be normalized. But in some cases, if we do not expand the field as plain wave, how to normalize them? For instance, in the \lambda \phi 4 theory, the field \phi has the dimension of GeV. Should we use \int |\phi|^4 dx^4 =1 instead of \int |\phi|^2 dx^3 =1 or \int |\phi|^4 dx^3 =1?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The wave function in quantum mechanics represents the state of the system. The field in quantum field theory is not the state, so why do you expect that it be normalized? On the other hand the states in QFT are assumed normalized.
 
If we want to solve the \lambda \phi 4 equation in the same way as solve the Dirac equation, I think we should normalize the result. So we can say that the trivial expresion of <initial | final> = <\phi|\phi>=1 means, when no perturbation, the amplitude from \phi to its own is 1. For instance, the free particle solution of the Dirac equation is normalized to 1 by a factor \sqrt{m/E}.
 
Normalization of a field is needed only when that field ITSELF is interpreted as a probability density amplitude. The field \phi in \phi^4 is usually not interpreted in that way.
 
In QFT the normalization of the field operators are defined via the equal-time commutation relations,

[itex][\phi(t,\vec{x}),\Pi(t,\vec{y})]=\mathrm{i} \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x}-\vec{y}).[/itex]

Here [itex]\Pi[/itex] is the canonical field momentum for [itex]\phi[/itex]. In [itex]\phi^4[/itex] theory, it's

[itex]\Pi(x)=\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{\phi}(x)}=\dot{\phi}(x).[/itex]

For the asymptotically free states, symbolized by external legs in Feynman diagrams, the states are to be normalized in the usual way to [itex]\delta[/itex] distributions (supposed you have taken account of wave-function renormalization in the external legs, i.e., left out all self-energy insertions in them, see Weinberg, QT of Fields, vol. 1).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K