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

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of the unphysical nature of the ##\phi^{3}## interaction in quantum field theory, particularly focusing on the positivity of energy and the boundedness of the potential energy. Participants explore the consequences of having an unbounded potential and its relation to quantum mechanics and quantum field theory.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the potential ##V=\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2+\lambda \phi^3## is unbounded below, leading to issues with energy positivity.
  • Others argue that adding a higher even power, such as ##\sigma \phi^4##, can make the potential bounded below.
  • One participant raises a question about the implications in quantum mechanics if energy levels are not bounded below, suggesting that particles could radiate infinitely and lead to catastrophic consequences.
  • Another participant clarifies that the discussion may be more relevant to quantum field theory (QFT) rather than quantum mechanics (QM), questioning the consistency of QM without radiation if energy levels lack a lower bound.
  • Concerns are expressed about the stability of states, such as the Hydrogen ground state, in the absence of a lower bound on energy levels.
  • Some participants suggest that excited states could be stable nonrelativistically if radiation is ignored.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the unbounded nature of the ##\phi^{3}## potential and its implications for energy positivity. However, there is no consensus on the broader implications for quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, with multiple viewpoints and questions remaining unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of stability and boundedness, as well as unresolved questions regarding the formalism of quantum mechanics in the context of unbounded energy levels.

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 [itex]E_n[/itex] to [itex]E_m[/itex] and releases a photon of frequency [itex]\nu = (E_n - E_m)/h[/itex]. 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 [itex]E_n[/itex] to [itex]E_m[/itex] and releases a photon of frequency [itex]\nu = (E_n - E_m)/h[/itex]. 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 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K