Question about non-relativistic limit of QFT

  • Thread starter Thread starter guillefix
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit Qft
guillefix
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Take a plane-wave solution of the KG equation,
\phi=\exp(i\vec p\cdot\vec x - i E t)
where
E =\sqrt{\vec p^2+m^2}
Now assume ##|\vec p|\ll m##. Then we have
E \simeq m + {\vec p^2\over 2m}
and the solution can be written as
\phi=\exp(-imt)\tilde\phi
where
\tilde\phi=\exp\bigl[i\vec p\cdot\vec x - i(\vec p^2\!/2m)t\bigr]
Now we can check that
\left|\ddot{\tilde\phi}\right|\ll m\left|\dot{\tilde\phi}\right|
as claimed. This will also apply to superpositions of different plane waves, provided that only plane waves with ##|\vec p|\ll m## are included in the superposition.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Thanks, and another question

Thanks for that! I've got another question though. In the same document, a bit later, he says that one can also derive the Schrodinger Lagrangian by taking the non-relativistic limit of the (complex?) scalar field Lagrangian. And for that he uses the condition \partial_{t} \Psi \ll m \Psi, which in fact I suppose he means |\partial_{t} \tilde{\Psi}| \ll |m \tilde{\Psi}|, otherwise I don't get it. In any case, starting with the Lagrangian:

\mathcal{L}=\partial^{\mu}\tilde{\psi} \partial_{\mu} \tilde{\psi}^{*} -m^{2}\tilde{\psi}\tilde{\psi}^{*}

Using the inequationI think it's correct, I can only get to:

\mathcal{L}=-\nabla\tilde{\psi} \nabla \tilde{\psi}^{*} -m^{2}\tilde{\psi}\tilde{\psi}^{*}

And from that I've tried relating \tilde{\psi} or \psi (as we can write the above Lagrangian with both, as it's invariant under multiplying by a pure phase), to \dot{\psi}
 
Last edited:
Yes, start with the lagrangian for a complex field,
{\cal L}=\partial^\mu\psi^*\partial_\mu\psi-m^2\psi^*\psi Let
\psi=e^{-imt}\tilde\psi Then we have
\partial_t\psi=e^{-imt}(-im\tilde\psi+\partial_t\tilde\psi) \quad\hbox{and}\quad \partial_t\psi^*=e^{+imt}(+im\tilde\psi^*+\partial_t\tilde\psi^*) Multiply these together, and drop the \partial_t\tilde\psi^*\partial_t\tilde\psi term as "small", but do not drop the cross terms. If you like, then integrate by parts to move the time derivative off \tilde\psi^* and onto \tilde\psi.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
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
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
8K
Replies
19
Views
4K
Back
Top