Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Properties of fields in quantum field theory

  1. Mar 12, 2015 #1
    I have been studying quantum field theory and I am currently in the Lagrangian field theory chapter in my book. Now it says that the energy momentum tensor is as follows:

    Tμν= [∂L/∂(∂μφ) * ∂νφ] - δμνL

    Note: I am using L to symbolize Lagrangian density and not just Lagrangian since the latex box doesn't have the curly L in it. Those two indices on the term on the right go to the Kronecker delta, not to the L.

    It follows up by saying that

    T00 = [∂L/∂φ' * φ'] - L (in the book, they have φ with a dot over it instead of φ' )

    Now I just want to verify some things:

    Does φ with a dot over it (or φ' ) refer to ∂φ/∂t ?

    If so, then this would be the velocity of the field correct, since it is the first time derivative? I ask this because unlike in the classical mechanics example problems that the book gave (where I was just dealing with position functions of time), fields φ(x,t) are functions of both time and space.

    Also, how does a field itself have a velocity if it permeates all of space? I could see how the particles that are generated from fluctuations of said field have a velocity. How does the field itself have a velocity? Does velocity for a field refer to how fast the particles generated from that field move or how fast the field's fluctuations are? Is it something else?

    Finally, how can a field itself have mass? If you plug a Lagrangian density into the Euler Lagrange equations for some given Lagrangian densities, then you sometimes get mass terms in the equations of motion that you derive? Once again, I see how a particle that comes from a field has mass, but I don't see how the field itself has mass (example, I see how the gluon has mass, but how does the strong field have mass?)
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 12, 2015 #2
    As to the last question about the fields having mass, I would suppose (if I am incorrect please correct me) that since the fields have energy, they must also have a mass equivalent to that energy.
     
  4. Mar 12, 2015 #3

    bhobba

    Staff: Mentor

    That's not true. Its a VERY VERY common misconception and anyone that believes can be excused. E=MC^2 says mass is a form of energy. Energy comes in a lot of forms eg EM field energy - mas is simply one of those forms. It does not imply energy is a form of mass.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2015
  5. Mar 12, 2015 #4
    May you please PM some of the details, or refer me to a section in a book or even a Wikipedia article so that I can learn more about what you're saying?
     
  6. Mar 12, 2015 #5

    bhobba

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes

    No. Its the rate of change of the field value at a specific point. Think of a stretched rope with waves - the derivative gives a rate of change of the height of a little element of the rope - that's not the velocity of the waves of the rope.

    The same way waves in a rope have a velocity.

    In QFT they can - but I will let someone more conversant in that subject explain why. In classical field theory the field doesn't have mass - it has energy via Noethers theorem and the modern definition of energy - but not mass.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
  7. Mar 12, 2015 #6

    bhobba

    Staff: Mentor

    Its simple logic.

    The modern definition of energy is via Noether's beautiful and deep theorem:
    http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/noetherth.htm

    Although you may not have seen it done this way the correct derivation of E=MC^2 uses that:
    http://fma.if.usp.br/~amsilva/Livros/Zwiebach/chapter5.pdf

    It proves the energy of a free relativistic particle at rest is MC^2. It does not prove energy in a general sense has mass - indeed from the modern definition based on Noethers theorem it makes no sense.

    The reason its a very common error is people are often very loose about reasoning with it - even some experts who should know better.

    However if you want to pursue it start a thread in our relativity sub-forum.

    Added Later

    The following may also help:
    http://www.quora.com/Does-energy-have-mass [Broken]

    Thanks
    Bill
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Properties of fields in quantum field theory
  1. Quantum Field Theory? (Replies: 28)

Loading...