Lamb shift and the QFT vacuum....

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the Lamb shift and its explanation within the framework of quantum field theory (QFT), specifically examining whether it can be attributed solely to radiative corrections from the self-interaction of an electron with its own electromagnetic field, or if concepts like vacuum polarization and vacuum fluctuations are necessary for a complete understanding.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the Lamb shift might be explained entirely through radiative corrections without needing to reference vacuum polarization or vacuum fluctuations.
  • Another participant argues that the Lamb shift is calculated using the Dirac equation for a single electron in a Coulomb field, incorporating radiative corrections via a form factor, and claims that the vacuum is not involved in this calculation.
  • A further contribution notes that while vacuum polarization does play a role in photon self-energy, its contribution to the Lamb shift is minor compared to the total shift.
  • It is mentioned that vacuum polarization refers to radiative corrections to the photon propagator and is distinct from the concept of vacuum fluctuations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of vacuum polarization in explaining the Lamb shift, with some asserting it is a minor contribution while others emphasize its relevance. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the extent to which vacuum concepts are needed for a complete explanation.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the role of vacuum fluctuations and the specific contributions of various factors to the Lamb shift, which are not fully explored.

asimov42
Messages
376
Reaction score
4
I think I already know the answer to this, but I'm looking for a source: Can the Lamb shift be explained entirely in terms of radiative corrections due to the self-interaction of the hydrogen's electron with its own EM field? That is, is it necessary to reference vacuum polarization or related concepts (vacuum fluctuations, etc.)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The Lamb shift is always calculated from a Dirac equation for a single electron in a Coulomb field, with radiative corrections incorporated into a form factor due to the interaction with the quantized electromagnetic field - the vacuum is not involved at all.

The computation of the form factor at lowest order involves the evaluation of an integral corresponding to a Feynman diagram, and hence has (like any perturbative calculation in quantum field theory) an interpretation in terms of vacuum expectation values of the bare, unphysical, free theory. The latter is responsible for the misleading talks about vacuum fluctuations as if that were something physical.

On the other hand, vacuum polarization is a real physical contribution to the photon self-energy; it has almost nothing to do with the Lamb shift, contributing only a small fraction.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
A minor part of the Lamb shift is also the vacuum polarization of the photon (according to Weinberg, QT of Fields, Vol. 1, its contribution is -37.13 MHz, which is indeed small compared to the total of ~1058 MHz). Of course "vacuum polarization" is just a name for the radiative corrections to the photon propagator and has nothing to do with vacuum fluctuations but with fluctuations of the photon and charged-matter fields in the Standard Model.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier
Closed pending moderation.

Edit (Dale): a large number of thread hijack posts have been removed
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Jilang

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K