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

Click For Summary
In Coleman's QFT lectures, confusion arises around equation 7.57, which involves calculating the scattering matrix (S matrix) with a Hamiltonian that includes an interaction function, f, that activates during a specific time interval. The state at distant past times, denoted as |ψ(-∞)⟩^in, is derived using the evolution operator in the interaction picture, but its definition and the role of the state |ψ⟩ remain unclear. Questions are raised about whether |ψ⟩ is in the Schrödinger or interaction picture and the necessity of the additional e^(iH₀t') term in the equation. Concerns are expressed about the implications of using a step function for f, emphasizing the need for "adiabatic switching" to ensure a consistent definition of the S-matrix. The discussion highlights the importance of smooth transitions in interactions within quantum field theory.
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 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
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...

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