QFT vs Wave Function: Understanding Particle States

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between quantum field theory (QFT) and quantum mechanics (QM), specifically focusing on how concepts like wave functions and field operators correspond to each other in single and multiparticle contexts. Participants explore foundational ideas in QFT, including the nature of particle states and the role of operator fields.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in understanding how the operator field in QFT corresponds to the wave function in QM for both single and multiparticle cases.
  • Another participant suggests that the quantum field ##\phi(x)## corresponds to the quantum mechanical variable ##q_j##, with implications for how it acts on particle states.
  • There is a discussion about whether quantum particles are emergent properties of quantum fields, with some participants arguing that particles are discrete modes of oscillation of the field.
  • Several participants note that the field operator does not contain state-specific information, similar to how position operators in QM do not contain such information.
  • It is mentioned that in QFT, there are multiple constructs that correspond to the wave function, including the field operator, wave functional, and the wave function itself, with questions raised about their equivalence and relationships.
  • Concerns are raised about the localization of particles, particularly for massless particles like photons, and the implications for defining position operators.
  • One participant highlights that QFT is based on operators, with states being of secondary importance, which raises questions about the nature of states in this framework.
  • Questions are posed regarding the relationship between wave functionals and wave functions, particularly in the context of obtaining nonseparable wave functions for multiple particles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a range of views on the correspondence between QFT and QM, with no consensus reached on several key points, including the nature of particle states and the role of operator fields. The discussion remains unresolved on how to interpret these relationships fully.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge various complexities, such as distribution theoretic issues and the challenges in defining position operators for certain particles. The discussion also touches on the foundational aspects of second quantization and its implications for understanding particle states.

  • #31
bob012345 said:
And what exactly and I mean physically, is a creation operator? Don't give me math, I want physics.

I am afraid in QFT the difference between math and physics is very blurred - what you ask simply can't be done. The attempt to do it leads to a LOT of misconceptions such as virtual particles that are very very hard to dislodge.

At a basic level see the harmonic occilator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator

In a certain sense QFT is an infinite set of harmonic occilators:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...field-an-infinite-set-of-harmonic-oscillators

Again notice:
'This is all nonsense.This might sound strong, but it has been the source of many annoying misunderstandings in the publicization of quantum theories to laypeople. Just because something (ϕϕ) fulfills a wave/oscillator equation and has a mode expansion (as the above is called), it does not mean that anything oscillates. It's just the same type of equation you encounter in oscillator, not the same physical situation. It's a nice pretty picture to tell ourselves that we understand the quantum field, but ultimately, there is nothing there that would justify the oscillator interpretation. Nothing physical is vibrating or oscillating here.'

In QFT the physics is the math.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Demystifier
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Well, although I agree that the only concise picture of nature is given by mathematical models, it is always good advice, to keep an eye on what's measured that's described by the mathematical model. That's most important for QFT.

QFT has a very broad range of applicability. It's the most comprehensive mathematical model we have about nature. The only part that's not satisfactorily covered is gravity, but to discover the quantum theory of gravity is hindered by the fact that we have no observables concerning gravity that would need a quantum description. The classical limit of a (hopefully existing) quantum theory of gravitation is General Relativity, which is a classical field theory.

Relativistic QFT has been discovered by looking at high-energy particle-scattering experiments, and the physical quantities that are observable are corresponding cross sections. In the QFT formalism these are encoded in S-matrix elements which we are able to calculate in renormalized perturbation theory, which is well organized in terms of Feynman diagrams (sometimes with the necessity to resum infinitely many diagrams to get finite results; or using renormalization-group equations to improve the applicability of perturbation theory etc.). Thus, the physical meaning of the formalism is in the S-matrix elements, and to keep this in mind is very important, if you want to understand why relativistic QFT is formulated as it is. In the relativistic realm you need QFT, because particles are usually created and destroyed in scattering processes, which makes the formalism with creation and annihilation operators a very natural way to describe what's going on. The interpretability in terms of "particles" is very limited, since this notion makes only sense in terms of S-matrix elements, i.e., for asymptotic free states.

Another application of QFT in both relativistic and non-relativistic physics is many-body theory, i.e., the theory of very many particles building "matter" in the literal sense. There you can use QFT to derive macroscopic (semi-)classical equations to describe effectively the relevant (macroscopic) degrees of freedom encoded in material parameters like particle densities, energy-momentum densities (energy-momentum-stress tensor), various transport coefficients, etc. All these quantities are given in terms of correlation functions of field operators, often evaluated in thermal equilibrium (usually in the grand-canonical ensemble).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K