Units of Fourier expanded field

In summary, the normalization of the creation and annihilation operators determines the mass dimension of the operators. The convention used in this conversation results in the correct mass dimension for the operators and allows for the equal-time commutation relation of the field operators. Different conventions may result in different mass dimensions, but as long as the equal-time commutation relation is satisfied, the operators are valid.
  • #1
copernicus1
99
0
If I write the basic scalar field as $$\phi(x)=\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\frac1{\sqrt{2E}}\left(ae^{-ik\cdot x}+a^\dagger e^{ik\cdot x}\right),$$ this would seem to imply that the creation and annihilation operators carry mass dimension -3/2. That's the only way I can get the total field ##\phi## to have mass dimension 1, since the ##d^3k## carries three dimensions of mass and the ##1/\sqrt{2E}## factor carries dimension -1/2. This seems contradictory to the fact that ##a^\dagger a## is usually defined as the number operator, which should be dimensionless. Am I missing something here? (My question at first was just how to get the dimensions of the Fourier-expanded field to come out right.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It's all about the normalization of the creation and annihilation operators. Using this convention, your normalization is such that the annihilation and creation operators fulfill
$$[a(\vec{p}),a^{\dagger}(\vec{q})]=(2 \pi)^3 \delta^{(3)}(\vec{p}-\vec{q}).$$
Thus ##N(\vec{p})=a^{\dagger}(\vec{p}) a(\vec{p})## are momentum-space number densities, i.e., the dimension for your annihilation and creation operators is, of course, correct since ##N(\vec{p})## must be of mass dimension -3.

Then you directly have for the total energy, e.g.,
$$H=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \frac{\mathrm{d}^3 \vec{p}}{(2 \pi)^3} \sqrt{m^2+\vec{p}^2} N(\vec{p}).$$

Note that there are many different conventions in the literature concerning the norm of the annihilation and creation operators. The unanimous commutation relation is the equal-time commutation relation of the field operators,
$$[\phi(t,\vec{x}),\dot{\phi}(t,\vec{x})]=\mathrm{i} \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x}-\vec{p}).$$
 

1. What are units of Fourier expanded field?

The units of Fourier expanded field depend on the type of field being expanded. For example, if the field is a physical quantity such as temperature or pressure, then the units will be in the corresponding SI units (e.g. Kelvin or Pascal). If the field is a mathematical function, then the units will depend on the specific application and may not have a physical interpretation.

2. How are units of Fourier expanded field determined?

The units of a Fourier expanded field are determined by the units of the original field being expanded and the coefficients of the Fourier series. The coefficients must have the same units as the original field in order for the expansion to be valid.

3. Can the units of a Fourier expanded field be converted?

Yes, the units of a Fourier expanded field can be converted to different units as long as the conversion factor is dimensionally consistent. This means that the units of the conversion factor must be able to cancel out the original units and result in the desired units.

4. Do the units of a Fourier expanded field affect its accuracy?

No, the units of a Fourier expanded field do not affect its accuracy. The accuracy of the expansion depends on the number of terms used in the series and the smoothness of the function being expanded.

5. Are there any limitations to using Fourier expanded fields?

There are a few limitations to using Fourier expanded fields. First, they may not be able to accurately represent discontinuous or highly oscillatory functions. Additionally, the convergence rate of the series may be slow for certain functions, requiring a large number of terms for an accurate representation. Lastly, the expansion may not be valid for fields with non-trivial boundary conditions.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
802
Replies
24
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
704
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
831
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
580
Replies
15
Views
1K
Back
Top