On equivalence of QFT and Quantum Statistical Physics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the relationship between Quantum Field Theory (QFT) and Quantum Statistical Physics (QSP), particularly exploring the equivalence of these frameworks in the context of many-particle quantum physics. Participants examine the implications of using imaginary time in QFT and its connection to temperature in statistical mechanics, as well as the conceptual challenges posed by these theories.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the equivalence of QFT in imaginary time to QSP serves as proof of the equivalence between many-particle quantum physics and quantum theory of fields, expressing uncertainty about the treatment of imaginary time and temperature.
  • Another participant challenges the perception of quantum fields as overly abstract compared to classical fields, specifically electromagnetism.
  • A different participant suggests that the inability to perform single-particle relativistic quantum mechanics leads to the necessity of pair creation-annihilation, prompting a question about deriving QFT from quantum statistical mechanics through the correspondence of temperature and imaginary time.
  • One participant notes that fields in Statistical Field Theory are not equivalent to particles and highlights the use of non-relativistic field theory in this context.
  • Another participant introduces an alternative method to derive thermal quantum field theory from quantum field theory using real-time formalism, arguing that this operator-based approach may be more intuitive than the path-integral method.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the abstraction of quantum fields versus classical fields, and there is no consensus on the equivalence of QFT and QSP or the best approach to relate them. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of relating imaginary time to temperature and the implications of using different formalisms in quantum field theory, indicating that assumptions and definitions may vary among contributions.

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
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K