Some fun (yet nice) questions on QFT

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ChrisVer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fun Qft
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on Quantum Field Theory (QFT) exercises, specifically questions 9 and 10 from a problem set found at the University of Cambridge. For question 9, participants clarify that the factor of 2 in the published result is attributed to a symmetry factor related to the indistinguishability of identical outgoing particles, as per Pauli's principle. In question 10, it is concluded that classical physicists did not introduce fields for particles like electrons because quantum mechanics and wavefunctions were not established concepts at that time, and coherent states for fermions do not exist.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Quantum Field Theory (QFT)
  • Familiarity with Pauli's exclusion principle
  • Knowledge of coherent states in quantum mechanics
  • Basic concepts of particle physics and Lorentz group representation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of symmetry factors in QFT calculations
  • Explore the concept of coherent states for bosons and the absence for fermions
  • Investigate the historical development of quantum mechanics and its impact on particle physics
  • Review the role of the Lorentz group in quantum field theories
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in theoretical physics, particularly those focusing on Quantum Field Theory, particle physics, and the historical context of quantum mechanics.

ChrisVer
Science Advisor
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
465
I was looking through some problems on QFT, and I found these exercises:
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft/oh4.pdf
I was wondering about questions 9 and 10...
Q9 : speaking I guess aftermatch ,why was there a factor of 2 wrong in the published result? To be honest I don't quiet understand the question posed by Pauli, was he asking for something like: \gamma \rightarrow \phi \phi or \gamma \gamma \rightarrow \phi \phi or even \phi \phi ( \rightarrow \gamma \rightarrow ) \phi \phi?
Q10: any hint for why classical physicists hadn't introduced fields for the particles like electrons? was that because QM and wavefunctions were not existent at that time?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,

Q9: I think he meant ##\gamma \rightarrow \phi \phi##. The factor 2 might be due to a symmetry factor that has to be taken into account when outgoing particles are identical (a consequence of Pauli's own principle).

Q10: I would say that indeed fields have their interest when particles cannot be described in terms on trajectories only (i.e. when we go quantum mechanical) and/or when we need to describe the different possibilities for representing the Lorentz group.
 
ChrisVer said:
I was looking through some problems on QFT, and I found these exercises:
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft/oh4.pdf
I was wondering about questions 9 and 10...
Q9 : speaking I guess aftermatch ,why was there a factor of 2 wrong in the published result? To be honest I don't quiet understand the question posed by Pauli, was he asking for something like: \gamma \rightarrow \phi \phi or \gamma \gamma \rightarrow \phi \phi or even \phi \phi ( \rightarrow \gamma \rightarrow ) \phi \phi?
Q10: any hint for why classical physicists hadn't introduced fields for the particles like electrons? was that because QM and wavefunctions were not existent at that time?
I agree with QB for Q9, it must be \gamma \rightarrow \phi \phi (well, this is not possible for an on-shell photon so it must be off-shell) and the factor of two is almost certainly the symmetry factor due to the indistinguishability of the two final particles. As for Q10, the key point is that there can be no coherent states for fermions. The E and B fields we observed in experiments are coherent states of the photon fields and there is no such state for fermions fields.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
12K
Replies
13
Views
9K
  • · Replies 85 ·
3
Replies
85
Views
21K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K