Understanding a sequence in P&S

  • A
  • Thread starter looseleaf
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Sequence
In summary, the conversation discusses how to deal with a step in Peskin and Schroeder involving the creation and annihilation operators and the commutation relations, which leads to a nonsensical expression. The solution is to throw away the problematic term and use a well-defined free Hamiltonian. There is also a discussion about reformulating continuum QFT to avoid these issues and the use of Wick ordering to obtain a sensible theory.
  • #1
looseleaf
24
1
I was wondering how to deal with this step in Peskin and Schroeder:

Screen Shot 2019-09-05 at 11.23.50 PM.png


So first you make the delta fn. from the exponential as d(p - (- p')), then what do you do with the creation/annihilation operators that have a negative subscript? I don't have to go into position/momentum representation do I?..
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You just do the integrals. Of course you integrate over ##\vec{x}## first. Then the integral over ##\vec{p}'## is trivial. Finally you use the commutation relations.

Note that (2.31) is a non-sensical expression and think about, why you can simply erase the nonsensical part ;-))).
 
  • Like
Likes looseleaf
  • #3
vanhees71 said:
Note that (2.31) is a non-sensical expression and think about, why you can simply erase the nonsensical part ;-))).

Imagine that, expressions of dubious existence in QFT? On a more serious note, is there a way to remedy these expressions in QFT without appealing to a lattice theory?
 
  • Like
Likes looseleaf
  • #4
This is the first time where the sloppy math of us physicists hits back in QFT: The commutator is a nonsensical result since it's proportional with ##\delta^{(3)}(0)## (which hand-wavingly argued is alread infinite), which then is even made "more infinite" by integrating over ##\omega_{\vec{p}}##.

The cure is very simple: As long as you do not refer to gravity the absolute value of energy doesn't matter since only energy differences are observable. All you want is a definition of the free-field Hamiltonian, which represents energy and the time evolution of the field operators (and any operators representing observables built from them) in the interaction picture. Thus you can simply through the non-sensical term away, because it's "an infinite operator proportional to the unit operator". Then you are left with a well-defined free Hamiltonian.

Now you can check that this "renormalized" free Hamiltonian satisfies the properties it should, i.e., that it leads to a useful time evolution for the field operators and observables.
 
  • Like
Likes looseleaf
  • #5
vanhees71 said:
This is the first time where the sloppy math of us physicists hits back in QFT: The commutator is a nonsensical result since it's proportional with ##\delta^{(3)}(0)## (which hand-wavingly argued is alread infinite), which then is even made "more infinite" by integrating over ##\omega_{\vec{p}}##.

The cure is very simple: As long as you do not refer to gravity the absolute value of energy doesn't matter since only energy differences are observable. All you want is a definition of the free-field Hamiltonian, which represents energy and the time evolution of the field operators (and any operators representing observables built from them) in the interaction picture. Thus you can simply through the non-sensical term away, because it's "an infinite operator proportional to the unit operator". Then you are left with a well-defined free Hamiltonian.

Now you can check that this "renormalized" free Hamiltonian satisfies the properties it should, i.e., that it leads to a useful time evolution for the field operators and observables.

I'm aware of this standard approach to the issue however I was wondering if there was some way to reformulate continuum QFT to avoid all of these nasty "operator-distribution"-type issues. Is the Hamiltonian in the creation-annihilation representation even a sensible expression? I thought we couldn't multiply operator distributions, much less integrate over such products with an unbounded measure. Something just feels deeply wrong about these basic expressions in QFT.
 
  • Like
Likes looseleaf
  • #6
vanhees71 said:
You just do the integrals. Of course you integrate over ##\vec{x}## first. Then the integral over ##\vec{p}'## is trivial. Finally you use the commutation relations.

Ok, I did those two integrals, then factor out the ##\omega_p## and foil out the c/a operators to get
$$ \frac{1}{2}(a_p a_p^\dagger + a_{-p}a_{-p}^{\dagger}) $$

I see how this is equivalent to the final expression if -p = p, but how do you deal with those negative momenta? Can you just flip them to positive without worrying because of some symmetry?
 
  • #7
looseleaf said:
Can you just flip them to positive without worrying because of some symmetry?

Yes because the energies are even functions of the momenta and the minus signs between the differentials and the integral limits cancel.
 
  • Like
Likes looseleaf
  • #8
HomogenousCow said:
Yes because the energies are even functions of the momenta and the minus signs between the differentials and the integral limits cancel.
Thanks! So do you mean that the limits of integration are ##(-\infty , \infty)## which could just as well be ##(\infty, -\infty) ##?
 
  • #9
HomogenousCow said:
I'm aware of this standard approach to the issue however I was wondering if there was some way to reformulate continuum QFT to avoid all of these nasty "operator-distribution"-type issues. Is the Hamiltonian in the creation-annihilation representation even a sensible expression?
Yes you must Wick order them with respect to the theory's vacuum. So rather than ##\phi^{4}## you must use ##:\phi^{4}:##
Similarly for all fields in the Hamiltonian. The Wick ordered Hamiltonian then does not have the problematic term.
 
  • Like
Likes looseleaf
  • #10
DarMM said:
Yes you must Wick order them with respect to the theory's vacuum. So rather than ##\phi^{4}## you must use ##:\phi^{4}:##
Similarly for all fields in the Hamiltonian. The Wick ordered Hamiltonian then does not have the problematic term.

So basically, the "pre-quantization" stage with the Lagrangian is just an ad-hoc way to obtain a rough form of the Hamiltonian, after which it has to be wick-ordered to obtain a sensible theory?
 
  • #11
looseleaf said:
Ok, I did those two integrals, then factor out the ##\omega_p## and foil out the c/a operators to get
$$ \frac{1}{2}(a_p a_p^\dagger + a_{-p}a_{-p}^{\dagger}) $$

I see how this is equivalent to the final expression if -p = p, but how do you deal with those negative momenta? Can you just flip them to positive without worrying because of some symmetry?
Just substitute ##\vec{p}'=-\vec{p}## in the second integral.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #12
HomogenousCow said:
So basically, the "pre-quantization" stage with the Lagrangian is just an ad-hoc way to obtain a rough form of the Hamiltonian, after which it has to be wick-ordered to obtain a sensible theory?
The form of the Hamiltonian is correct, it's just an issue with constructing the quantization. If the classical field ##\phi## is quantized to ##\hat{\phi}##, then ##\phi^{4}## is quantized to ##:\hat{\phi}^{4}:##

The Hamiltonian is fine, it's just an issue of how to quantize powers of the field.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and weirdoguy
  • #13
Though note one interesting thing, if ##j^{\mu}## is a conserved current in the classical theory it can be the case that ##\partial_{\mu}:\hat{j}^{\mu}:\neq 0##. This is the origin of anomalies.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #14
DarMM said:
The form of the Hamiltonian is correct, it's just an issue with constructing the quantization. If the classical field ##\phi## is quantized to ##\hat{\phi}##, then ##\phi^{4}## is quantized to ##:\hat{\phi}^{4}:##

The Hamiltonian is fine, it's just an issue of how to quantize powers of the field.
Is this somehow related to Groenewold's theorem?
 
  • #15
HomogenousCow said:
Is this somehow related to Groenewold's theorem?
Not exactly.

In NRQM you really only have one choice for ##\hat{q}## and ##\hat{p}## (Stone-Von Neumann theorem). However there is then no unique choice for ##\hat{Q}\left(q,p\right)## in general. The space of quantum operators is larger than the space of classical functions of ##q,p## and there is no canonical map between them. That's Groenewold's theorem.

In QFT there are infinite choices of ##\hat{q}## and ##\hat{p}##, that is ##\hat{\phi}## and ##\hat{\pi}##, but first of all the quantisation of ##\hat{\phi}## and ##\hat{\pi}## does not straight forwardly extend to monomials of either. In QM monomials were no problem, even with Groenewold's theorem. There the issue is that polynomials are not uniquely quantised, here in QFT the problem is that the quantisation of monomials is undefined.

The Wick ordering then defines the monomials (and products of fields typically appearing in the Hamiltonian) as operators. However it will turn out that the Hamiltonian is typically not self-adjoint or semi-bounded except for a specific choice of ##\hat{\phi}## and ##\hat{\pi}##.

This latter part is the origin of the infinities in QFT, only for a single choice/representation of the field operators do the Wick orderings produce powers that give a well-defined Hamiltonian.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby and vanhees71
  • #16
DarMM said:
Not exactly.

In NRQM you really only have one choice for ##\hat{q}## and ##\hat{p}## (Stone-Von Neumann theorem). However there is then no unique choice for ##\hat{Q}\left(q,p\right)## in general. The space of quantum operators is larger than the space of classical functions of ##q,p## and there is no canonical map between them. That's Groenewold's theorem.

In QFT there are infinite choices of ##\hat{q}## and ##\hat{p}##, that is ##\hat{\phi}## and ##\hat{\pi}##, but first of all the quantisation of ##\hat{\phi}## and ##\hat{\pi}## does not straight forwardly extend to monomials of either. In QM monomials were no problem, even with Groenewold's theorem. There the issue is that polynomials are not uniquely quantised, here in QFT the problem is that the quantisation of monomials is undefined.

The Wick ordering then defines the monomials (and products of fields typically appearing in the Hamiltonian) as operators. However it will turn out that the Hamiltonian is typically not self-adjoint or semi-bounded except for a specific choice of ##\hat{\phi}## and ##\hat{\pi}##.

This latter part is the origin of the infinities in QFT, only for a single choice/representation of the field operators do the Wick orderings produce powers that give a well-defined Hamiltonian.

What sets these different representations apart?
 
  • #17
HomogenousCow said:
What sets these different representations apart?
Different choices of operators obeying the CCR. In NRQM it turns out all choices are unitarily equivalent.

For example
\begin{align*}
\hat{x} & = x\\
\hat{p} & = -i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial x}
\end{align*}
is one choice, but
\begin{align*}
\hat{x} & = x\\
\hat{p} & = -i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial x} + i\ln\left(x\right)
\end{align*}
is another.

One acts on the Hilbert space of square integrable functions under the measure ##dx##, the other on the Hilbert space of square integrable functions under ##e^{-x^2}dx##. However these choices are related under the unitary transformation ##e^{x^2}##.

In QFT the choices are not unitarily related.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby and vanhees71

FAQ: Understanding a sequence in P&S

1. What is a sequence in P&S?

A sequence in P&S refers to a specific order in which events, actions, or processes occur. It is a fundamental concept in science and is often used to describe the steps involved in a particular experiment or the progression of a biological process.

2. Why is it important to understand a sequence in P&S?

Understanding a sequence in P&S allows scientists to accurately document and replicate experiments, as well as identify potential causes of discrepancies or errors. It also helps to establish cause and effect relationships between different events or processes.

3. How do you determine the sequence in P&S?

The sequence in P&S can be determined by carefully observing and recording the order of events or actions. This can be done through various methods such as taking notes, creating diagrams or flowcharts, and using technology like time-lapse photography.

4. Can a sequence in P&S change?

Yes, a sequence in P&S can change depending on various factors such as external influences, experimental conditions, and individual variations. It is important for scientists to carefully monitor and document any changes in the sequence to ensure accurate results.

5. How does understanding a sequence in P&S contribute to scientific progress?

Understanding a sequence in P&S is crucial for scientific progress as it allows for the development and refinement of theories and hypotheses. It also enables scientists to make informed decisions and draw meaningful conclusions from their research, leading to advancements in various fields of study.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Back
Top