Unphysical nature of ##\phi^{3}## interaction

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter spaghetti3451
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Interaction Nature
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implications of the unphysical nature of the ##\phi^{3}## interaction as described in Peskin and Schroeder. It is established that the potential energy function ##V=\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2+\lambda \phi^3## is unbounded below, leading to non-positive-definite energy unless a higher even power term, such as ##\sigma \phi^4##, is added. This addition ensures that the potential is bounded below, allowing for a stable Hamiltonian. The conversation also touches on the consequences in quantum mechanics (QM) and quantum field theory (QFT) if energy levels lack a lower bound, highlighting potential catastrophic outcomes.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum field theory (QFT) principles
  • Familiarity with potential energy functions in particle physics
  • Knowledge of the implications of energy level stability in quantum mechanics
  • Basic concepts of quantum electrodynamics (QED)
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of bounded vs. unbounded potentials in quantum field theory
  • Explore the role of higher-order terms in potential energy functions
  • Investigate the stability of energy levels in quantum mechanics and its relation to radiation
  • Learn about quantum electrodynamics (QED) and its development from classical radiation models
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, particularly those specializing in quantum field theory, particle physics, and quantum mechanics, will benefit from this discussion. It is also relevant for students and researchers interested in the stability of quantum systems and the implications of potential energy functions.

spaghetti3451
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
31
In page 77 of Peskin and Schroeder, it's mentioned that for a ##\phi^{3}## interaction, the energy is not positive-definite unless we add a higher even power of ##\phi##.

Can someone please prove this statement?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
One reason is that ##V=\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2+\lambda \phi^3## is unbounded below (##V\to-\infty## as ##\phi \to-\infty##).

On the other hand, ##V=\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2+\lambda\phi^3+\sigma \phi^4## is bounded below.

Does that help in any way?
 
Last edited:
Yes, that's the reason. As long as V is bounded below, we can add a constant to V that makes the minimum value of V equal zero. Then each term in the hamiltonian is positive. But if V is unbounded below, this cannot be done.
 
Here's a related question: What goes wrong in QM if the energy levels are not bounded below? We could reason that particles tend to radiate, and drop to lower energy levels. So if there is no lower bound to the energy levels, then the particle will just keep falling to lower and lower energy levels, and will radiate an infinite amount of energy. This would be a catastrophe, and would end up destroying the universe, I suppose. But would it be actually inconsistent with QM?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
stevendaryl said:
Here's a related question: What goes wrong in QM if the energy levels are not bounded below? We could reason that particles tend to radiate, and drop to lower energy levels. So if there is no lower bound to the energy levels, then the particle will just keep falling to lower and lower energy levels, and will radiate an infinite amount of energy. This would be a catastrophe, and would end up destroying the universe, I suppose. But would it be actually inconsistent with QM?
I think by QM you actually mean QFT, because AFAIK we can't have creation of photons in QM! But maybe you mean classical radiation from quantum mechanical matter? Is it reasonable?
 
Shyan said:
I think by QM you actually mean QFT, because AFAIK we can't have creation of photons in QM! But maybe you mean classical radiation from quantum mechanical matter? Is it reasonable?

Well, prior to actually developing QED, physicists had a simplistic model of radiation: that a particle makes a transition from energy level E_n to E_m and releases a photon of frequency \nu = (E_n - E_m)/h. But I could rephrase the question: Does QM without radiation run into inconsistencies if the energy levels are not bounded from below?
 
stevendaryl said:
Well, prior to actually developing QED, physicists had a simplistic model of radiation: that a particle makes a transition from energy level E_n to E_m and releases a photon of frequency \nu = (E_n - E_m)/h. But I could rephrase the question: Does QM without radiation run into inconsistencies if the energy levels are not bounded from below?

What immediately comes to mind is that we wouldn't have stable states like the Hydrogen ground. But I feel like there would be a more general issue with the formalism?
 
HomogenousCow said:
What immediately comes to mind is that we wouldn't have stable states like the Hydrogen ground. But I feel like there would be a more general issue with the formalism?

But nonrelativistically, excited states are stable, if you ignore radiation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
922
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K