Graduate Simple S matrix example in Coleman's lectures on QFT

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on equation 7.57 from Coleman's Quantum Field Theory (QFT) lectures, specifically regarding the calculation of the scattering matrix (S matrix) with a Hamiltonian defined as $$H=H_{0}+f\left(t,T,\Delta\right)H_{I}\left(t\right)$$. The confusion arises from the interpretation of the state $$\left|\psi\right\rangle$$ and the application of the evolution operator $$U_{I}$$ in the interaction picture. The importance of "adiabatic switching" is emphasized, referencing Gell-Mann and Low's approach to defining the S-matrix consistently. The discussion also highlights the potential pitfalls of using a step function for the function $$f$$, which could lead to significant issues in calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) principles
  • Familiarity with Hamiltonians in quantum mechanics
  • Knowledge of interaction and evolution operators in the interaction picture
  • Concept of adiabatic switching in quantum mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Coleman's Quantum Field Theory lectures for deeper insights
  • Learn about the implications of adiabatic switching in QFT
  • Examine Gell-Mann and Low's method for S-matrix calculations
  • Review the paper on the consequences of using step functions in QFT from arXiv: 1310.5019
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in Quantum Field Theory, physicists interested in scattering theory, and anyone looking to understand the nuances of the S matrix calculations and the importance of smooth interaction functions.

Glenn Rowe
Gold Member
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Simple S matrix example in Coleman's lectures on QFT
In Coleman's QFT lectures, I'm confused by equation 7.57. To give the background, Coleman is trying to calculate the scattering matrix (S matrix) for a situation in which the Hamiltonian is given by
$$H=H_{0}+f\left(t,T,\Delta\right)H_{I}\left(t\right)$$
where ##H_{0}## is the free Hamiltonian, ##H_{I}## is the interaction, and ##f## is a function that turns the interaction on only for a time interval ##T## around ##t=0##. ##\Delta## determines the rate at which the interaction is switched on and off.
Since the interaction is off for times in the distant past and future, the state at these times will be the exact state determined by the free Hamiltonian ##H_{0}##. Coleman calls this state (for the distant past) ##\left|\psi\left(-\infty\right)\right\rangle ^{\text{in}}## and claims that it is given by
$$\left|\psi\left(-\infty\right)\right\rangle ^{\text{in}}=\lim_{t^{\prime}\rightarrow-\infty}e^{iH_{0}t^{\prime}}e^{-iHt^{\prime}}\left|\psi\right\rangle =\lim_{t^{\prime}\rightarrow-\infty}U_{I}\left(0,t^{\prime}\right)\left|\psi\right\rangle $$
where ##U_{I}## is the evolution operator in the interaction picture. He doesn't specify what the state ##\left|\psi\right\rangle## is, but I can't make sense of this equation no matter what I assume about it. Is it the state in the Schrödinger picture or the interaction picture? What time is the state supposed to be at?
If it's the Schrödinger picture (as seems to be the case, as he says this when calculating ##S## in equation 7.59) and the time is ##t=0##, then the ##e^{-iHt^{\prime}}## operator would evolve the state to time ##t^{\prime}##, but then what is the additional ##e^{iH_{0}t^{\prime}}## for?
Finally, how does he get the last equality above? According to Coleman's definition of ##U_{I}## (his equation 7.31) we should have
$$U_{I}\left(t,0\right)=e^{iH_{0}t}e^{-iHt}$$
where the ##t## and the 0 are swapped from its occurrence in the above equation.
Anyone have any thoughts? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I hope Coleman didn't really mean that ##f## is a step function, because then he's generally in big trouble. I don't believe that Coleman really made such a claim. It's really important to do this right and introduce "adiabatic switching" as Gell-Mann and Low did to define the S-matrix in a consistent way. A very good explanation in the QFT context is given in Bjorken and Drell, Quantum Field theory.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
vanhees71 said:
I hope Coleman didn't really mean that ##f## is a step function, because then he's generally in big trouble.
What exactly goes wrong if one takes a step function?
 
Have a look at this:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.5019

I think this is a nice example underlining the importance of a correct and smooth "adiabatic switching" (both on and off!) in QFT.

I ordered Coleman's book, because this must simply be a gem. Unfortunately it'll take more than 4 weeks to arrive :-(.

I found some other lecture notes from Coleman's QFT lectures online

https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.5013

There it's of course correct and very well discussed, as expected.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier and physicsworks
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K