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:
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...

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