Spectrum of the Hamiltonian in QFT

Click For Summary
In quantum field theory (QFT), the Hamiltonian spectrum does not provide the same comprehensive insights as in ordinary quantum mechanics due to the complexity of multiparticle states in Fock space. While it is theoretically valid to write the equation \(\hat H |\psi_{n}\rangle=E_{n}|\psi_{n}\rangle\), it is often not useful in the context of interacting states, where the S-matrix formalism becomes more relevant. The distinction between free and interacting states is crucial, as free particles can be analyzed on a mass sheet, while interacting states lack a well-defined Hamiltonian in relativistic QFTs like QED. The existence of a well-defined QFT in 3+1 dimensions remains an open question, complicating the understanding of the Hamiltonian. Overall, QED serves primarily as a framework for perturbative calculations rather than a fully established theory.
unchained1978
Messages
91
Reaction score
0
I know in ordinary QM, the spectrum of the Hamiltonian \{ E_{n}\} gives you just about everything you need for the system in question (roughly speaking). So what happens to this spectrum in QFT where |\psi\rangle is now a multiparticle wavefunction in some Fock space? I've been trying to understand this, but I don't yet have a clear grasp. Essentially, what's wrong with writing \hat H |\psi_{n}\rangle=E_{n}|\psi_{n}\rangle in QFT where the psi's are now multiparticle states?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's nothing wrong, but it's not really useful. The QFT has two types of states: free / asymptotic ones for which the spectral equation for the Hamiltonian has solutions - free particles on their mass sheet (according to the representations of SL(2,C) semidirect product with R^4), while for the interacting states there's no use for the spectral equation, since the states are no longer stationary -> S-matrix formalism.
 
What's a mass sheet? (Or did you mean mass shell?) Also, I read elsewhere that determining the spectrum corresponds to finding the spectrum of m^{2} or something, but I don't quite understand what that means or why it's important.
 
unchained1978 said:
Essentially, what's wrong with writing \hat H |\psi_{n}\rangle=E_{n}|\psi_{n}\rangle in QFT where the psi's are now multiparticle states?

There is nothing wrong. In some favourable cases you can diagonalize the multiparticle hamiltonian and you get everything you want from it, like e.g. for the strong coupling hamiltonian in superconductors.
The problem with relativistic QFT's like QED is that in 3+1 dimensions no one even has shown that the QFT exists at all as a well defined theory and the hamiltonian is unknown.
 
DrDu said:
The problem with relativistic QFT's like QED is that in 3+1 dimensions no one even has shown that the QFT exists at all as a well defined theory and the hamiltonian is unknown.

Can you elaborate a bit please? Or provide some links? I don't quite understand what you mean here.
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K