Understanding the Propagator in Quantum Field Theory

Neitrino
Messages
133
Reaction score
0
Hello PF :)
Let me for the moment consider just <0|\varphi(y)\varphi(x)|0> as a propagator (instead of commutator of the fields)... and so in this expression evolves only <0|aa^{+}|0> part.
Now my question is:

1) We can consider this expression as <0|a vector multiplied by a^{+}|0> which is <1|1> so this is a transition aplitude that one "one-particle state" will go to another "one-particle state" but I don't understad the idea of propagation in such treatment...
a)One-particle is created at x position - this is one quantum state
b)One-particle is created at y position - this is another quantum state
and multiplication of these quantum states I appreciate as a propagator?

2) We can consider above expression as multiplication of <0 vector by aa^{+}|0> vector where aa^{+}|0> is creation of particle at x position =|1> and death of this one-particle state at y position again giving me the vacuum.
So since the annihilation of already born one-particle state happens at y position I should assume that this one-particle state SHOULD TRAVEL to y position where it is annihilated by "a" (basically if "something" is annihilated "somewhere" this "something" should first reach that "somwhere" place)and this travel corresponds to propagation of particle from x to y?

Is my undersyanding correct ? If my understanding is correct I can't apply the same logic to my 1) treatment.

Thanks alot
 
Physics news on Phys.org
no ideas ... :(
 
? :(
 
Both of your perspectives are equivalent. A maybe easier to understand definition is this:
<br /> G(x,t;x&#039;,t&#039;) = \langle 0 | \psi(x,t) \psi^\dagger(x&#039;,t&#039;) |0 \rangle<br />

The operator \psi^\dagger(x&#039;,t&#039;) creates a particle in the vacuum state at position x' and time t'. Then the operator \psi(x,t) attempts to destroy a particle at position x and time t. So what the propagator really measures is that if a particle at x',t' is allowed to time evolve for time t-t', what is its probability amplitude for being at x? The idea being that the time evolution operator may cause the particle which starts localized at x' to "spread out."

Your confusion might be because you've left off the time arguments. If you have your operators at the same time, then \langle 0 | \varphi(y) \varphi^\dagger(x) |0 \rangle is the projection of your state x onto state y, and is really just testing their orthogonality.
 
This post is a spin-off of the original post that discussed Barandes theory, A new realistic stochastic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, for any details about the interpretation in general PLEASE look up for an answer there. Now I want this post to focus on this pre-print: J. A. Barandes, "New Prospects for a Causally Local Formulation of Quantum Theory", arXiv 2402.16935 (2024) My main concerns are that Barandes thinks this deflates the anti-classical Bell's theorem. In Barandes...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...

Similar threads

Back
Top