Operators: how to get rid of the two extra terms?

  • Thread starter Thread starter latentcorpse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operators Terms
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the manipulation of operators in quantum field theory, specifically focusing on equation 2.45 from provided notes. The original poster is attempting to simplify an expression involving the fields \(\phi(\vec{x})\) and \(\pi(\vec{x})\), which leads to the emergence of extra terms after normal ordering.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the implications of taking expectation values of operators constructed from momentum eigenstates and the resulting terms that may vanish. There is also a consideration of whether certain terms can be disregarded based on their contribution to the overall expression.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring different interpretations of the terms involved and questioning the validity of certain arguments. Some guidance has been offered regarding the behavior of terms when taking expectation values, but there is no consensus on the resolution of the original poster's query.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of the state space in quantum field theory, including superpositions of various particle states, which may affect the presence of certain terms after applying annihilation operators. There is also mention of external resources that provide alternative perspectives on the problem.

latentcorpse
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to work out equation 2.45 in these notes:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft/two.pdf

Anyway \phi(\vec{x}) and \pi(\vec{x}) are given in equations 2.18 and 2.19

When I multiply out \pi(\vec{x}) \vec{\div} \phi(\vec{x}) I get four terms.
After normal ordering I can combine two of them to get the a_{\vec{p}}^\dagger a_{\vec{p}} term I am meant to but I also have a a_{\vec{-p}} a_{\vec{p}} and a a_{\vec{-p}}^\dagger a_{\vec{p}}^\dagger term that I cannot get rid of.

Does anyone know how to get rid of the two extra terms?

Cheers
 
Physics news on Phys.org


When we use an operator like this, we do so by taking its expectation value against some state.

\langle \psi | P | \psi \rangle

But in this formalism, states are constructed out of momentum eigenstates.

|\psi\rangle = a^\dagger_p|0\rangle

That means that terms like a^\dagger_p a^\dagger_{-p} in the momentum operator will lead to things like

\langle 0 | a_p a^\dagger_p a^\dagger_{-p} a^\dagger_p|0\rangle

Terms like this will always vanish, because there aren't enough a_p's to annihilate all of the a^\dagger_p's (and there aren't any at all to annihilate the a^\dagger_{-p}'s), so some of them will hit the vacuum on the left and vanish. A similar argument holds for terms like a_p a_p.

I'm not sure whether that's a good answer, because you could say the same thing about the Hamiltonian too, and there those terms explicitly cancel without needing this argument, but I know that when you use it as an expectation value like this, those terms won't contribute.
 
Last edited:


Chopin said:
When we use an operator like this, we do so by taking its expectation value against some state.

\langle \psi | P | \psi \rangle

But in this formalism, states are constructed out of momentum eigenstates.

|\psi\rangle = a^\dagger_p|0\rangle

That means that terms like a^\dagger_p a^\dagger_{-p} in the momentum operator will lead to things like

\langle 0 | a_p a^\dagger_p a^\dagger_{-p} a^\dagger_p|0\rangle

Terms like this will always vanish, because there aren't enough a_p's to annihilate all of the a^\dagger_p's (and there aren't any at all to annihilate the a^\dagger_{-p}'s), so some of them will hit the vacuum on the left and vanish. A similar argument holds for terms like a_p a_p.

I'm not sure whether that's a good answer, because you could say the same thing about the Hamiltonian too, and there those terms explicitly cancel without needing this argument, but I know that when you use it as an expectation value like this, those terms won't contribute.

so basically they've just looked ahead and said that those terms won't be relevant?

i agree that they won't be if you take an expectation value it just bugs me because what he's written as an equality doesn't appear to actually be an equality!
 
I think Chopin's argument fails because the general state in Fock space is a superposition of 0-particle states, 1-particle states, 2-particle states, etc etc. It might very well survive after we hit it with 2 annihilation operators. :frown:

However if you do the x-integration carefully, I think you might find that the resulting integrand is odd in p, and so the whole thing does vanish anyway. If memory serves me correctly.
 

Similar threads

Replies
27
Views
4K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K