On equivalence of QFT and Quantum Statistical Physics

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the equivalence of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) in imaginary time and Quantum Statistical Physics (QSP), questioning whether this equivalence proves that many-particle quantum physics aligns with quantum field theory. Participants express concerns about the abstract nature of quantum fields compared to classical fields, such as electromagnetism. The conversation highlights the challenges of relating imaginary time to temperature and kinetic energy, emphasizing the need for a formal transformation to bridge these concepts. Additionally, it introduces the idea of deriving thermal quantum field theory through real-time formalism as an alternative to the traditional path-integral approach.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Quantum Field Theory (QFT)
  • Familiarity with Quantum Statistical Physics (QSP)
  • Knowledge of imaginary time formalism
  • Basic concepts of partition functions in statistical mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the relationship between imaginary time and temperature in QFT
  • Research the real-time formalism in Quantum Statistical Mechanics
  • Study the implications of pair creation and annihilation in relativistic quantum mechanics
  • Investigate the differences between path-integral and operator-based approaches in QFT
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, quantum mechanics researchers, and students interested in the foundations of Quantum Field Theory and its applications in statistical physics.

tomkeus
Messages
72
Reaction score
0
Does fact that QFT in imaginary time is equivalent to QSP represents the proof that many-particle quantum physics is equivalent to quantum theory of fields?

To elaborate a little, I had some discussion with some engineers, and when I was explaining them Standard Model I had to invoke concepts of quantum fields and they immediately turned their noses in despise to "overly abstract" concept.

Since they didn't have problems with quantum particles and statistical physics I've thought of taking the route starting from many-particle quantum physics but I'm not sure that I can do that because I'm not certain how to treat equivalence of imaginary time with temperature. I mean, parameter t in QFT enters from space-time structure but parameter \beta is inserted in partition function only to be shown after calculation, what is it's connection with kinetic energy.

In Minkowski space time-component of energy-momentum is energy but I cannot find any formal transformation which would transform it into median kinetic energy at corresponding temperature.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why cast pearls before the swine ? ;-)

Why is the quantum field more abstract than the classical field of let's say electromagnetism?
 
malawi_glenn said:
Why is the quantum field more abstract than the classical field of let's say electromagnetism?

Well, beats me, but I kinda came to think of it as an interesting question. One of the first thing you are being taught about QFT is that you cannot do right single-particle relativistic QM because necessarily pair creation-annihilation comes into play. Now, what if we try doing quantum statistical mechanics of relativistic particles? Would we get QFT as a result of formal correspondence of temperature and imaginary time?
 
But the fields in Statistical Field Theory is i) not particles and ii) one often use non-relativistic field theory.
 
I just wanted to point out that there is another way to derive thermal quantum field theory from quantum field theory other than the imaginary-time formalism. There is also the real-time formalism which is more intuitive - an operator based approach rather than path-integral. Of course path-integrals make everything easier, but sometimes you lose the physics if your view is to compare imaginary time in the path integral to inverse temperature and the partition function.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
826
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K