Recovering QM from QFT: David Tong Notes

Click For Summary
David Tong's lecture notes on quantum field theory (QFT) outline how quantum mechanics (QM) can be derived from QFT, specifically detailing the definitions of momentum and position operators through integrals. The discussion raises concerns about the lack of clarity in the intermediate steps of calculations, particularly regarding integrals involving operators. It suggests that using the Feynman path integral approach could illustrate how Galilean symmetry emerges at low energies, although the mathematical feasibility of this remains uncertain. The conversation also draws parallels to chiral perturbation theory and emphasizes the need to understand the relationship between non-relativistic QM and its relativistic counterparts. Overall, the complexities of deriving non-relativistic QM from QFT highlight the challenges in bridging these theoretical frameworks.
victorvmotti
Messages
152
Reaction score
5
Reading through David Tong lecture notes on QFT.On pages 43-44, he recovers QM from QFT. See below link:

[QFT notes by Tong][1] [1]: http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft/qft.pdfFirst the momentum and position operators are defined in terms of "integrals" and after considering states that are again defined in terms of integrals we see that the ket states are indeed eigen states and the eigen values are therefore position and momentum 3-vectors.

What is not clear to me is the intermediate steps of calculations not shown in the lecture notes, in particular, the computation of integrals involving operators as their integrand, to obtain the desired results.
 
The full way is very hard, and maybe may not exist.

In the Wilsonian spirit, one would use the Feynman path integral to argue that Galilean symmetry is emergent at low energies and low speeds. Then one would write down all terms consistent with Galilean symmetry. If one could really do the maths, one would be able to determine which of those terms are important and which are not. I don't know if one can do the maths, or even if one can, whether anyone has done it. So the present use of non-relativistic physics must be treated as a mix of theory (Galilean symmetry emergent at low energies) and guesswork confirmed by experiment (determination of which terms are important).

An analogous case is the derivation of the chiral perturbation theory lagrangian. There are very interesting comments, including the non-relativistic case, in "Foundations of Chiral Perturbation Theory" in http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Chiral_perturbation_theory.

Another interesting place to look is the chapter on bound states in external fields in the first of Weinbger's 3 volumes on QFT. Then one has to also know the relationship between non-relativistic QM which can be derived from relativistic QM which can be derived from relativistic QFT. Relativistic QM, the intermediate theory, is not a coherent theory, but for some strange reason, non-relativistic QM is a coherent theory.
 
Last edited:
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

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
Replies
13
Views
9K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K