Need help regarding the derivation of a 2-particle wavefunction

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the derivation of a two-particle wavefunction as presented in Blundell's QFT book, specifically regarding the normalization factor of 1/√2! to avoid double counting. Participants clarify that the two-particle states |x,y⟩ and |p,q⟩ are already symmetrized or antisymmetrized, which is crucial for distinguishing between bosonic and fermionic states. The normalization factor is essential for maintaining proper normalization during transformations, and the factor does not emerge naturally from the Fourier transforms without considering symmetrization. The conversation highlights the importance of correctly defining the two-particle states to achieve the desired normalization in the equations. Understanding these nuances is vital for accurately applying quantum field theory concepts.
WWCY
Messages
476
Reaction score
15
Homework Statement
From Blundell's QFT
Relevant Equations
Fourier transforms
I have an issue trying to understand the derivation of equation 3.40 (screenshot attached) of Blundell's QFT book. Here's my attempt.

##| x,y \rangle = |x\rangle \otimes |y\rangle = \Big( \int dp' \phi_{p'}(x)|p'\rangle \Big) \otimes \Big( \int dq' \phi_{q'}(y)|q'\rangle \Big)## which gives ##\int dp' \int dq' \phi_{p'}(x) \phi_{q'}(y) |p',q'\rangle##.

I can't seem to understand the argument by Blundell that "the factor of ##1/\sqrt{2!}## is needed to prevent double counting that results from unrestricted sums". Why does the factor of ##1/\sqrt{2!}## not "pop out" on its own? Aren't Fourier transforms supposed to preserve normalisation?Cheers.
Screenshot 2019-06-19 at 6.10.16 AM.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
could someone assist? Many thanks
 
Since no one has responded yet, I will try to help a little. I am not very familiar with this topic.

WWCY said:
##| x,y \rangle = |x\rangle \otimes |y\rangle = \Big( \int dp' \phi_{p'}(x)|p'\rangle \Big) \otimes \Big( \int dq' \phi_{q'}(y)|q'\rangle \Big)## which gives ##\int dp' \int dq' \phi_{p'}(x) \phi_{q'}(y) |p',q'\rangle##.

You assumed here that ##|x,y \rangle = |x\rangle \otimes |y\rangle ## and ##|q,p \rangle = |p \rangle \otimes |q\rangle ##. But I don't think that's right. ##| x,y \rangle ## and ##| q,p \rangle## are two-particle states that are already symmetrized or antisymmetrized for bosons or fermions.

For example, the definition of ##| p,q \rangle## is ##| p,q \rangle = \hat a_p ^\dagger \hat a_q^ \dagger | 0 \rangle##. Using the commutation relations for the operators, you see that ##| p,q \rangle = \pm | q, p \rangle##, (+ for bosons, - for fermions). But, ##|p \rangle \otimes |q\rangle\neq \pm |q \rangle \otimes |p\rangle##.

I can't seem to understand the argument by Blundell that "the factor of ##1/\sqrt{2!}## is needed to prevent double counting that results from unrestricted sums". Why does the factor of ##1/\sqrt{2!}## not "pop out" on its own? Aren't Fourier transforms supposed to preserve normalisation?
Here, I don't think I can help much. As I see it, the factor of ##1/\sqrt{2!}## is part of the definition of ##|x,y \rangle##. I'm not sure of the interpretation of Blundell's remark about preventing double counting. But, with the factor of ##1/\sqrt{2!}##, you can see that you get the properly normalized result in Blundell's (3.40).
 
  • Like
Likes WWCY
Hi, thanks for the reply!

I completely forgot about the part regarding anti-symmetry/symmetric states.

However, would it make any sense if I performed the Fourier transforms on this (symmetric) state? ##|x,y\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ( |x \rangle |y\rangle + |y \rangle |x\rangle )##
 
WWCY said:
Hi, thanks for the reply!

I completely forgot about the part regarding anti-symmetry/symmetric states.

However, would it make any sense if I performed the Fourier transforms on this (symmetric) state? ##|x,y\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ( |x \rangle |y\rangle + |y \rangle |x\rangle )##

If you take ##|p, q \rangle## as corresponding to ##\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}( |p \rangle |q \rangle + |q \rangle ||p \rangle)## and ##|x, y \rangle## as corresponding to ##\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (|x \rangle |y \rangle + |y \rangle |x \rangle )##, then ## \langle y, x | p, q \rangle## will not yield the factor of ##\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}## in Blundell's (3.40). If you want to get that factor, it appears that you would have to take ##|x,y\rangle## as corresponding to ## \frac{1}{2} ( |x \rangle |y\rangle + |y \rangle |x\rangle )## which has an overall factor of ##\frac{1}{2}## instead of ##\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}##. This corresponds to the extra factor of ##\frac{1}{\sqrt{2!}}## that Blundell includes in his definition of the change of basis from the basis ##|p, q \rangle ## to the basis ##|x, y \rangle##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
787
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
7K
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K