Interactions between field operators & locality in QFT

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the requirement for interactions between field operators in quantum field theory (QFT) to occur at single spacetime points to maintain locality and causality. Participants explore the implications of this requirement for different types of separations (timelike, spacelike, and lightlike) and the potential consequences of allowing interactions at distinct points.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why interaction Lagrangians must be of the form \(\mathcal{L}_{int} \sim (\phi(x))^{2}\) rather than \(\mathcal{L}_{int} \sim \phi(x)\phi(y)\) for time-like separated points, suggesting that allowing interactions at distinct points could imply action-at-a-distance.
  • Another participant asserts that if future events interact with present events, it would violate causality, although they note that this is not entirely impossible.
  • Some participants propose that the requirement for interactions to occur at single spacetime points relates to both causality and locality, suggesting that Lorentz invariance necessitates this condition.
  • One participant distinguishes between timelike and spacelike separations, stating that causality applies to timelike separations while locality applies to spacelike separations, and notes the lack of a specific term for lightlike separation.
  • A later reply elaborates on the implications of allowing interactions between fields at different spacetime points, arguing that such interactions would lead to instantaneous influence, thus constituting action-at-a-distance in all cases of separation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying views on the necessity and implications of locality and causality in interactions between field operators. While some agree on the importance of locality and causality, the discussion remains unresolved regarding the broader implications of allowing interactions at distinct spacetime points.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the implications of different types of separations (timelike, spacelike, lightlike) on the nature of interactions, but there are unresolved assumptions about the definitions and implications of locality and causality in the context of quantum field theory.

"Don't panic!"
Messages
600
Reaction score
8
Why is it required that interactions between fields must occur at single spacetime points in order for them to be local? For example, why must an interaction Lagrangian be of the form [tex]\mathcal{L}_{int}\sim (\phi(x))^{2}[/tex] why can't one have a case where [tex]\mathcal{L}_{int}\sim\phi(x)\phi(y)[/tex] where ##x^{\mu}## and ##y^{\mu}## are time-like separated?

Is it simply because the fields themselves are localised, i.e. they are described in terms of their values at each spacetime point, and as such to avoid action-at-a-distance they can only interact with one another when they are located at the same spacetime point (as otherwise two fields ##\phi(x)## and ##\phi(y)## at distinct spacetime points ##x^{\mu}## and ##y^{\mu}## could spontaneously interact with one another which would constitute action-at-a-distance)? Hence if they were located at two distinct spacetime points that are time-like separated, then any direct interaction between them would still constitute action-at-a-distance, as they would be able to spontaneously influence one another despite not being at the same spacetime point?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If things from the future interact with things in the present, you violate causality.
Not completely impossible, but also nothing that experiments would suggest.
 
mfb said:
If things from the future interact with things in the present, you violate causality.
Not completely impossible, but also nothing that experiments would suggest.

So is the requirement that interactions occur at single spacetime points as much a statement about causality as it is about locality?
Would it be correct to say that the requirement that causality is obeyed, along with Lorentz invariance, requires that interactions are local and that any direct interaction between two fields can only occur when the fields are located at the same spacetime point?

 
Last edited:
For timelike separations it is causality, for spacelike separations it is locality. I don't think there is a special word for lightlike separation.
"Don't panic!" said:
Would it be correct to say that the requirement that causality is obeyed, along with Lorentz invariance, requires that interactions are local and that any direct interaction between two fields can only occur when the fields are located at the same spacetime point?
I think so.
 
mfb said:
For timelike separations it is causality, for spacelike separations it is locality. I don't think there is a special word for lightlike separation.

So is the idea that interactions should be both local in time and space in order to ensure causality and locality are both satisfied?I've had a think about and have come up with the following argument as to why interactions must occur at single spacetime points. It seems to make sense to me, but I'd really appreciate you taking a look at it and letting me know what you think?

First, consider two points ##x^{\mu}## and ##y^{\mu}## that are timelike separated. In such a case it is possible to find a frame in which the two events are located at the same spatial point (but impossible to find one in which there occur at the same time). We see explicitly then that if two fields, located at ##x^{\mu}## and ##y^{\mu}## respectively, are allowed to interact directly, then one would be able to influence the other instantaneously and without any mediation despite their temporal separation. Thus timelike separated fields cannot interact directly.

Secondly, consider two points ##x^{\mu}## and ##y^{\mu}## that are spacelike separated. In such a case it is possible to find a frame in which the two events occur at the same time (but impossible to find one in which there located at the same spatial point). We see explicitly then that if two fields, located at ##x^{\mu}## and ##y^{\mu}## respectively, are allowed to interact directly, then one would be able to influence the other instantaneously and without any mediation despite their spatial separation. Thus spacelike separated fields cannot interact directly.

Finally, consider two points ##x^{\mu}## and ##y^{\mu}## that are lightlike separated. In such a case it is impossible to find a frame in which the two events occur at the same point or to find one in which there occur at the same time). We see explicitly then that if two fields, located at ##x^{\mu}## and ##y^{\mu}## respectively, are allowed to interact directly, then one would be able to influence the other instantaneously and without any mediation despite their temporal and spatial separation. Thus lightlike separated fields cannot interact directly either.

Thus in all three cases we see that any direct interaction between two fields would constitute action-at-a-distance (either through temporal or spatial separation, or both).
Therefore we conclude that in order for an unmediated, direct interaction between two fields to be local it must occur at a single spacetime point.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K