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

Glenn Rowe
Gold Member
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
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 Schrodinger picture or the interaction picture? What time is the state supposed to be at?
If it's the Schrodinger 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
I am not sure if this falls under classical physics or quantum physics or somewhere else (so feel free to put it in the right section), but is there any micro state of the universe one can think of which if evolved under the current laws of nature, inevitably results in outcomes such as a table levitating? That example is just a random one I decided to choose but I'm really asking about any event that would seem like a "miracle" to the ordinary person (i.e. any event that doesn't seem to...
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...

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top