Question on particles/fields in QFT

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AuraCrystal
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Qft
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between classical fields and particles in Quantum Field Theory (QFT), specifically addressing how quantization of a scalar field leads to the interpretation of excitations as particles. The scope includes theoretical concepts and clarifications regarding the nature of particles in QFT.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that a classical field can be expanded into an integral of harmonic oscillators, leading to the question of whether these correspond to particles upon quantization.
  • Another participant suggests that each excitation of the field can be considered a particle, as they obey the energy-momentum relation, but cautions that QFT fundamentally describes fields rather than particles.
  • A participant queries whether it is the modes in the Fourier expansion of the field or the quantum of the excitation that should be identified as the particle.
  • A later reply indicates a realization that the energy of the field can be viewed as discrete "packets," which may be interpreted as particles, but emphasizes that they are fundamentally "packets" of the field from the QFT perspective.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying interpretations of the relationship between field excitations and particles, with some agreeing on the notion of excitations as particles while others highlight the distinction between particles and field packets. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the precise nature of particles in QFT.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the definitions of particles and excitations, as well as the implications of the energy-momentum relation in the context of QFT. These aspects are not fully explored or agreed upon.

AuraCrystal
Messages
67
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I've been reading a book on QFT (specifically, Atchison and Hey) and they say that a classical field can be expanded into an integral of harmonic oscillators. When you quantize the scalar field [itex]\phi[/itex], it becomes an operator. Now, this is an infinite number of quantum oscillators. Do these correspond to particles? Of course, you can also write out the Hamiltonian in this way; in other words, does the energy of the field equal the sum of all the energies of these particles?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, basically. You can consider each excitation of the field is a particle since each excitation is discrete and obeys the energy momentum relation E^2=p^2+m^2 (they will obey this relation if the field obeys the Klein-Gordon equation). But be careful with the notion of particles in QFT. In the end, QFT is a theory of fields and not particles.

Specifically, for example, [itex]a^\dagger_\vec{p}|0\rangle[/itex] creates a "particle" in a specific momentum eigenstate, and so this "particle" is not localized over any region of spacetime. So this may notion of particles is not quite in resonance with the normal notion of a particle as a corpuscular entity localized in space (to a point, or w/e).
 
OK, so is it the modes in the Fourier expansion of phi or is it the quantum of the excitation that is the particle?
 
Never mind, I just misread something in the book. ^_^; I think I get it now; the energy of the field comes in discrete "packets" which can be interpreted as particle, but at the end of the day, all they really are (from the standpoint of QFT) is "packets" of the field.

(Also, sorry for the double post. It won't let me edit my other one.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K