QFT question about using momentum raising and lowering operators

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of momentum raising and lowering operators in quantum field theory (QFT), specifically focusing on expressing the number of particles in terms of field operators and vice versa. Participants explore the mathematical relationships and normalization conditions involved in these expressions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in converting the Hamiltonian for a scalar field from field operators to the number of particles, noting that a coefficient does not cancel as expected.
  • Another participant clarifies their intention to reverse the process, seeking to express the number of particles in terms of momentum raising and lowering operators.
  • A third participant suggests starting with the field and momentum expressions and inverting them, implying that this should be straightforward.
  • Another participant recommends using finite volume with periodic boundary conditions to avoid issues with delta distributions, emphasizing the importance of normalization in the mode decomposition of annihilation-creation operators.
  • This participant also mentions that the normalization affects the relationship between the number operators and the Hamiltonian and momentum operators for non-interacting particles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the approach to the problem, with no consensus on the best method to express the number of particles in terms of field operators or vice versa. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific steps to take.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the dependence on normalization choices and the implications of using finite volume limits, indicating that these factors may complicate the relationships being discussed.

arnshch
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
How did you find PF?: Google

I know how to express Hamiltonian for scalar field written in field operators through the raising and lowering momentum operators, but I can't figure out how to do the same for the number of particles written in field operators: the 1/2E coefficient within the corresponding integral, doesn't go away in the latter expression, as it does in the former one, and I cannot figure out how to deal with it. Any advise?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry, I actually want to do the opposite: from the number of particles written through momentum raising and lowering operators to the same number expressed in field operators.
 
Start with $$\phi(\vec {x})=\int \frac{d^{3}k}{\sqrt{2 \omega_k}} a_k ~e^{i \vec{k} \cdot \vec{x}}+ a_k^\dagger~e^{-i \vec{k} \cdot \vec{x}}$$ $$\pi(\vec {x})=-i\int d^{3}k \sqrt{\frac{\omega_k}{2}} a_k ~e^{i \vec{k} \cdot \vec{x}}- a_k^\dagger~e^{-i \vec{k} \cdot \vec{x}}$$ and invert these, should be straightforward from there.
 
I'm not sure about what the OP's question is. I'd recommend to start with a finite volume with periodic boundary conditions on the fields (operators) to get rid of all kinds of problems with ##\delta## distributions.

Then it depends on how you normalize your annihilation-creation operators in the mode decomposition, which factors enter into the "number operators". If you want to get the simple relation ##\hat{N}(\vec{k},\sigma)=\hat{a}^{\dagger}(\vec{x}) \hat{a}(\vec{x})## you have to normalize by the (anti-)commutator relations
$$[\hat{a}(\vec{k}),\hat{a}^{\dagger}(\vec{k}')]_{\pm}=\delta_{\vec{k},\vec{k'}},$$
where here in the finite volume limit we have Kronecker-##\delta##'s.

Then for the non-interacting particles you get
$$\hat{H}=\sum_{\vec{k}} \vec{k} \hat{N}(\vec{k}), \hat{\vec{P}}=\sum_{\vec{k}} \vec{k} \hat{N}(\vec{k})$$
etc.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
940
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K