I Prefactor in Canonical Quantization of Scalar Field

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the discrepancies in prefactor choices for canonical quantization of the scalar field between Peskin and Srednicki's texts. Peskin uses a prefactor of 1/√(2Eₚ), while Srednicki employs 1/(2ω), leading to confusion regarding their equivalence after taking time derivatives. The participants note that different normalizations for creation and annihilation operators affect the commutators, which must ultimately yield consistent results. The choice of prefactor depends on the desired properties, such as convenience for momentum eigenstates or manifest Lorentz invariance. The correct prefactor is defined by the equal-time (anti-)commutator relations, ensuring consistency across formulations.
thatboi
Messages
130
Reaction score
20
Hey all,
I am encountering an issue reconciling the choice of prefactors in the canonical quantization of the scalar field between Srednicki and Peskin's books. In Peskin's book (see equation (2.47)), there is a prefactor of ##\frac{1}{\sqrt{2E_{p}}}## whereas in Srednicki's book (see equation (3.18) and (3.19)), there is a prefactor of ##\frac{1}{2\omega}##. What concerns me is that if we take the derivative with respect to time of the field, then in Peskin's case, we are left with a ##\sqrt{E_{p}}## factor whereas in Srednicki's book, the ##\frac{1}{\omega}## prefactor completely disappears, so I fail to see how these 2 definitions can be equivalent.
Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Compare also the commutators of creation/destruction operators, they should be different too, so that at the end the commutators between the field and its time derivative are the same.
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark, thatboi and malawi_glenn
Yes, different books uses different normalizations for the ##\hat a## and ##\hat a^\dagger##
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark, vanhees71, thatboi and 1 other person
Great, thanks a lot. My confusion initially came from when I was looking through Itzykson's QFT book and came upon this discussion on pg. 521:
1679847504828.png

Specifically, looking at how the scalar field is quantized in equation (11.39), it seems to me that if we used Peskin's definition of normalization, then the energy term wouldn't cancel out after we take the derivative with respect to time and thus we couldn't evaluate the integral in equation (11.41) right (since the energy term is also necessarily a function of the spatial coordinates of momentum).
 
It depends, at which place you want to have it convenient. If you want the creation and annihilation operators to create momentum eigenstates normalized to 1, you need the ##1/\sqrt{2 E_{\vec{p}}}## factors in the mode decomposition. If you want manifestly covariant integrals in the mode decomposition you need the ##1/(2 E_{\vec{p}})## factors. That's because ##\mathrm{d}^2 p/(2 E_{\vec{p}})## is mainfestly Lorentz invariant.

The correct factor of the field is of course always uniquely defined by the equal-time (anti-)commutator relations,
$$[\hat{\Phi}(t,\vec{x}),\hat{\Pi}(t,\vec{y})]=\mathrm{i} \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x}-\vec{y}).$$
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...