1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Klein gordon equation

  1. May 15, 2008 #1
    I am being really thick here

    I have this wave equation, the massless klien gordon equation

    [tex]\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}\phi(x)=0[/tex]

    where the summation over [tex]\mu[/tex] is over 0,1,2,3

    the general solution is a superposition of plane waves yes? i.e

    [tex]\phi(x)=\int d^4 p \overline{\phi}(p)exp(i p_{\mu}x^{\mu})[/tex]

    where [tex]\overline{\phi}[/tex] is the weighting function.

    When you susbsitute this back into the klein gordon equation you get down two factors of p, i.e

    [tex]p_{\mu}p^{\mu}[/tex] which equals zero. (mass shell constraint), thus satisfying the equation of motion.

    My question is, is [tex]\overline{\phi}(p)[/tex] arbitrary? I don't really understand why this is so, let alone believe it.

    Hope peeps understand the question.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 15, 2008 #2

    neu

    User Avatar

    The superpostion equation you wrote is simply the fourier transform of [tex] \phi (x)[/tex].

    [tex] \phi (p)[/tex] are not arbitrary as [tex] \phi (p) = FT^{-1}[\phi (x)][/tex]

    Have I misunderstood your question?
     
  4. May 15, 2008 #3
    yeah I understand that.

    I'm being really thick here.

    I want the general solution [tex]\phi(x)[/tex] to the equation, ie as a superposition of plane wave solutions, but in fourier space.

    Ultimately I want to know what [tex]\overline{\phi}(p)[/tex] is.
     
  5. May 15, 2008 #4
    What I mean is, if [tex]\overline{\phi}(p)[/tex] is one weighting function whose fourier transform solves the klein gordon equation and [tex]\overline{\psi}(p)[/tex] is another different weighting function is the fourier transform of [tex]\overline{\psi}[/tex] also a solution.
     
  6. May 15, 2008 #5
    Well, any [tex]\phi(p)[/tex] will make [tex]\phi(x)[/tex] a solution. These are merely coefficients in your Fourier expansion. However, once you write the Hamiltonian in terms of [tex]\phi(p)[/tex] and [tex]\pi(p)[/tex], you will find that it simplifies greatly (decoupled harmonic oscillators, one for each p), and quantization is the next step.
     
  7. May 15, 2008 #6
    great as long as you're sure about that. That's what I hoped.

    I have guessed some expression between [tex]\phi(p)[\tex] and a whole load of other stuff and I want to test my conjecture on the computer. So, presumably I can just invent some suitable function for [tex]\phi(p)[\tex] stick it into a c-program and check it works.
     
  8. May 15, 2008 #7

    nrqed

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    As others said, phi(p) is arbitrary. The way to see this is the following: plane waves (with the condition on p^2) are solutions of the equation and the equation is linear, therefore arbitrary linear combinations of plane waves will satisfy the equation. Therefore phi(p) is arbitrary.
     
  9. May 15, 2008 #8

    strangerep

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Adding my $0.02 to what others have already said, the [itex]\overline{\phi}(p)[/itex] is not
    entirely "arbitrary", because you have imposed the mass-shell constraint [itex]p_{\mu}p^{\mu}=0[/itex].
    Think of that as a "constraint hypersurface" in 4D momentum space.

    I.e., [itex]\overline{\phi}(p)[/itex] is undefined for values of p which are not on
    the constraint hypersurface.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2008
  10. May 15, 2008 #9

    nrqed

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    True but this is not a condition on the functional form [itex]\overline{\phi}(p)[/itex], it's a restriction on the argument p. I mean, as long as p is a valid p, any function phi(p) is valid, right?

    A different consideration arises if we consider localized wavepackets phi(x). Then there must be a condition on phi(p).
     
  11. May 15, 2008 #10

    strangerep

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Yes and yes.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Klein gordon equation
  1. Klein-Gordon equation (Replies: 6)

Loading...