Questions on field operator in QFT and interpretations

user1139
Messages
71
Reaction score
8
Homework Statement
Confused over physical interpretations pertaining to QFT
Relevant Equations
Please refer below
For a real scalar field, I have the following expression for the field operator in momentum space.

$$\tilde{\phi}(t,\vec{k})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega}}\left(a_{\vec{k}}e^{-i\omega t}+a^{\dagger}_{-\vec{k}}e^{i\omega t}\right)$$

Why is it that I can discard the phase factors to produce the time independent ##\tilde{\phi}(\vec{k})##?

Also, when we speak about the equal time commutation relations, are we looking at the Heisenberg or the Schrodinger picture? Following up, why can we write the equal time commutation relations as time independent?

Moreover, when we speak about the Fock representation in conjunction with the annihilation and creation operators, which picture are we looking at?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thomas1 said:
Homework Statement:: Confused over physical interpretations pertaining to QFT
Relevant Equations:: Please refer below

For a real scalar field, I have the following expression for the field operator in momentum space.

$$\tilde{\phi}(t,\vec{k})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega}}\left(a_{\vec{k}}e^{-i\omega t}+a^{\dagger}_{-\vec{k}}e^{i\omega t}\right)$$

Why is it that I can discard the phase factors to produce the time independent ##\tilde{\phi}(\vec{k})##?

Also, when we speak about the equal time commutation relations, are we looking at the Heisenberg or the Schrodinger picture? Following up, why can we write the equal time commutation relations as time independent?

Moreover, when we speak about the Fock representation in conjunction with the annihilation and creation operators, which picture are we looking at?
I'm not sure what do you mean when you ask about discarding the phase factors...
But in QFT one usually works with Heisenberg picture, since are the operators (in your case ##\phi##) the ones that evolve in time, not the states.
 
Gaussian97 said:
I'm not sure what do you mean when you ask about discarding the phase factors...
But in QFT one usually works with Heisenberg picture, since are the operators (in your case ##\phi##) the ones that evolve in time, not the states.
Could you explain in layman terms why in QFT we do not time evolve the states? This is because I noticed that ##\phi## is sometimes defined with the phase factor and sometimes without.
 
Last edited:
Which phase factor? From which book are you learning? I'm not sure what this expression you give in #1 should mean. Usually you either have free field operators in time-position representation (in the Heisenberg picture for non-interacting fields, also being used as the field operators in the interaction picture used in perturbation theory) or the creation and annihilation operators for spin-momentum eigenstates.
 
vanhees71 said:
Which phase factor? From which book are you learning? I'm not sure what this expression you give in #1 should mean. Usually you either have free field operators in time-position representation (in the Heisenberg picture for non-interacting fields, also being used as the field operators in the interaction picture used in perturbation theory) or the creation and annihilation operators for spin-momentum eigenstates.
The phase factor I am talking about is ##e^{i\omega t}## and ##e^{-i\omega t}##. I am using the book called "Quantum fields in curved space". However, the part about ##\phi## being sometimes time dependent and sometimes time independent is due to me searching the web and looking at lecture notes available online.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top