A Quantum Field Theory: 3-4 Equation Steps Explained

Adwit
Messages
15
Reaction score
2
TL;DR Summary
I had been trying to understand second quantization for few months from an easy book "Quantum Field Theory Demystified". But couldn't succeed. So, I have posted my problem.
I understand how do 3 no. equation come from 1 & 2 no. equation. But I am struggling to understand how do 4 no. equation come from 3 no. equation. Will anyone do the steps between 3 no. equation and 4 no. equation, please ?
oOAfyizG.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
@Adwit, we normally do not allow equations posted as images; that means they cannot be quoted usefully in responses. The PF LaTeX Guide (link at the bottom left of each post window) will help you to use LaTeX to format equations directly in your post.

That said, these equations are admittedly pretty gnarly so I can understand the temptation to use images.

Adwit said:
Will anyone do the steps between 3 no. equation and 4 no. equation, please ?

Look at the delta functions in the third equation. What do they tell you about the integral over ##p^\prime##? (Note that the integral in the third equation should really be a double integral; there is an integral over ##p## and an integral over ##p^\prime##.)
 
Ok, this is the last time I posted image of calculation. For now, I will write the calculation. Now, can you do the steps between 3 no. equation and 4 no. equation ?
 
Adwit said:
Ok, this is the last time I posted image of calculation. For now, I will write the calculation. Now, can you do the steps between 3 no. equation and 4 no. equation ?

Step 3 to step 4 is a "simple" application of the delta function. That is much simpler than understanding the equations that have gone before.

You must know what the Dirac delta function ##\delta(p-p')## is?
 
For what its worth, as far as I can tell there is indeed something funny going on with the factors of ##2\pi## here. If that is indeed the problem the best is probably if you show us what you got.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier and PeroK
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top