Propagator using Functional QFT

jfy4
Messages
645
Reaction score
3
Hi,

I am trying to write down the propagator for a scalar field theory, but I want to try and get it in the functional representation. My plan is to compute the following:
<br /> \langle \psi (x&#039;, t&#039;) | \psi (x,t) \rangle <br />
which gives the amplitude to go from x' to x. Now I guess I have to interpret this state as the ground state of the scalar field, since next I want to drop in a complete set of states
<br /> \langle \psi (x&#039;, t&#039;) | \psi (x,t) \rangle = \int \mathcal{D}\phi \, \langle \psi (x&#039;, t&#039;) |\phi \rangle \langle \phi | \psi (x,t) \rangle = \int \mathcal{D}\phi \, \psi^{&#039; *}[\phi] \, \psi [\phi]<br />
Is this procedure correct so far? Can I assume the wave functional is the ground state of the field theory in order to continue? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Wait, I think I got it. For a free scalar field the propogator would be like
<br /> \langle 0 | \varphi (x) \varphi(x&#039;) | 0 \rangle<br />
Then we put in a complete set of eigenstates
<br /> \int \mathcal{D}\phi \, \langle 0 | \varphi (x) | \phi \rangle \langle \phi | \varphi(x&#039;) | 0 \rangle = \int \mathcal{D}\phi \, \phi(x) \, \phi(x&#039;) \, \psi^{*}_{0}[\phi] \, \psi_{0}[\phi] <br />
Next would be to explicitly calculate what \psi_{0}[\phi] would be and then do the functional integral I believe.
 
Ah, the generating functional approach, I am trying to stay away from that right now. I want to compute the two point correlation function for a free scalar field theory using "wave functional" representation. I'm still trying to make it work though . . .

currently, I am working with the lowering operator
<br /> a(\vec{k}) = \int d^3 x \, e^{-i \vec{k}\cdot \vec{x}}(\omega(\vec{k})\varphi(x) + i\pi(x) )<br />
and solving for \Psi_{0}[\tilde{\phi}] using
<br /> a(\vec{k}&#039;)\Psi_{0}[\tilde{\phi}]=\omega(\vec{k})\tilde{\phi}(\vec{k}&#039;)\Psi_{0}[\tilde{\phi}]+\frac{\delta \Psi_{0}[\tilde{\phi}]}{\delta \tilde{\phi}(\vec{k}&#039;)}=0<br />
and I get
<br /> \Psi_{0}[\tilde{\phi}] = N \exp \left[-\frac{1}{2} \int d^3k \, \tilde{\phi}(\vec{k})\omega(\vec{k}) \tilde{\phi} ( \vec{k} ) \right]<br />
Now I am in the process of solving the gaussian integral
<br /> \int\mathcal{D}\tilde{\phi} \, \tilde{\phi}(\vec{k})\tilde{\phi}(\vec{k}&#039;) \, \Psi_{0}^{*}[\tilde{\phi}] \, \Psi_{0}[\tilde{\phi}]<br />
but I can't seem to get it to work yet . . .
 
Last edited:
it does not seem that it will work.Are you sure with it?
 
jfy4 said:
Wait, I think I got it. For a free scalar field the propogator would be like
<br /> \langle 0 | \varphi (x) \varphi(x&#039;) | 0 \rangle<br />
Then we put in a complete set of eigenstates
<br /> \int \mathcal{D}\phi \, \langle 0 | \varphi (x) | \phi \rangle \langle \phi | \varphi(x&#039;) | 0 \rangle = \int \mathcal{D}\phi \, \phi(x) \, \phi(x&#039;) \, \psi^{*}_{0}[\phi] \, \psi_{0}[\phi] <br />
Next would be to explicitly calculate what \psi_{0}[\phi] would be and then do the functional integral I believe.

You have to be careful here. You're probably using a coherent-state basis, which is a basis corresponding to eigenvalues of the field operators. This basis is overcomplete, so you need a compensating factor for this. Look at for instance Altland and Simons.
 
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...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA

Similar threads

Back
Top