Vacuum expectation value and lorenz (trans) invariance

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of Lorentz and translational invariance on the vacuum expectation value in quantum field theory. Participants explore the formal verification of the statement that the vacuum expectation value, denoted as \(\langle 0| \phi(x) |0 \rangle\), must be a constant due to these symmetries.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the vacuum state \(| 0 \rangle\) is translationally invariant, leading to the conclusion that \(\langle 0 | \phi(x) | 0 \rangle\) is independent of \(x\).
  • One participant questions the postulation of translational and Poincaré invariance for the vacuum state, noting that this is not always clearly stated in literature.
  • Another participant suggests that if the Hamiltonian possesses a certain symmetry, it is expected that the ground state will also exhibit that symmetry, with the absence indicating spontaneous symmetry breaking.
  • It is proposed that spatial variations in the field value incur energy costs, which supports the idea that the lowest energy state is translationally invariant.
  • Some participants discuss the possibility of thermal states where the vacuum may not be Poincaré invariant, but in Minkowski space, translation-invariant vacua are favored due to lower energy costs.
  • One participant mentions that in curved spacetimes, multiple vacuum states may exist, but they must locally resemble the Poincaré-invariant vacuum to avoid pathologies.
  • Another point raised is the ability to formulate quantum field theory for thermalized systems in a covariant manner, emphasizing the importance of measuring energies in the rest frame of the heat bath.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and differing views regarding the implications of symmetries on the vacuum state. While some support the idea of translational invariance leading to constant expectation values, others introduce scenarios where this may not hold, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion involves assumptions about the nature of the vacuum state and the implications of symmetries, which may not be universally applicable across all contexts, particularly in curved spacetimes or thermal states.

center o bass
Messages
545
Reaction score
2
Hi! I've seen it stated that because of Lorenz and translational invariance

[tex]\langle 0| \phi(x) |0 \rangle[/tex]

has to be a constant and I wondered how to formally verify this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For any spacetime displacement ##a##, there is some unitary operator ##T(a)## that implements translations by ##a##. That is, ##T(a) | \psi \rangle## is the same state as ##| \psi \rangle## but shifted by ##a##, and also ##\phi(x-a) = T(a)^\dagger \phi(x) T(a)## for any local operator ##\phi##. If we assume that the vacuum state ##| 0 \rangle## is translationally invariant, then we have

##T(a) | 0 \rangle = | 0 \rangle##

and as a consequence

##\langle 0 | \phi(x) | 0 \rangle = \langle 0 | T(a)^\dagger \phi(x+a) T(a) | 0 \rangle = \langle 0 | \phi(x+a) | 0 \rangle##

for any spacetime displacement ##a##. So the expectation value is independent of x.
 
The_Duck said:
For any spacetime displacement ##a##, there is some unitary operator ##T(a)## that implements translations by ##a##. That is, ##T(a) | \psi \rangle## is the same state as ##| \psi \rangle## but shifted by ##a##, and also ##\phi(x-a) = T(a)^\dagger \phi(x) T(a)## for any local operator ##\phi##. If we assume that the vacuum state ##| 0 \rangle## is translationally invariant, then we have

##T(a) | 0 \rangle = | 0 \rangle##

and as a consequence

##\langle 0 | \phi(x) | 0 \rangle = \langle 0 | T(a)^\dagger \phi(x+a) T(a) | 0 \rangle = \langle 0 | \phi(x+a) | 0 \rangle##

for any spacetime displacement ##a##. So the expectation value is independent of x.


Ah, thanks! Btw: can you give me any reasons (intuitions) on why one postulate the vacuum state to be translational and poincare invariant?

The books I've read have not been clear that this even is a postulate.
 
If the Hamiltonian has a certain symmetry, the default expectation is usually that the ground state will be invariant under that symmetry. For example, we would be surprised to find that the ground state of the hydrogen atom was not rotationally invariant. If the ground state is not invariant then the symmetry is "spontaneously broken." In this case there must actually be many possible ground states, which can be transformed into each other by the symmetry. I imagine it must be possible to construct relativistic field theories with spontaneously broken Lorentz invariance but I haven't seen one myself.

One heuristic reason to expect that translational invariance will not be spontaneously broken is that the spatial derivative terms in the Lagrangian which look like ##| \vec{\nabla} \phi |^2## tell you that spatial variation in the value of ##\phi## costs energy, so it is not surprising that the lowest energy state is translationally invariant.
 
center o bass said:
Ah, thanks! Btw: can you give me any reasons (intuitions) on why one postulate the vacuum state to be translational and poincare invariant?

The books I've read have not been clear that this even is a postulate.
It could be the case that the field theory is in a thermal state, in which case the state with the lowest energy in the Hilbert space, the thermal vacuum, would not be Poincaré invariant. However if you look at all possible vacua, then in Minkowski space, the translation invariant ones have the lowest energy, in fact the other vacua cost "infinite energy" and hence are pretty much eliminated.

In curved spacetimes, we lack a symmetry to select out one of the vacua over the others like this, so several vacuum states are possible. However even there they must look locally like the Poincaré-invariant vacuum (this is the microlocal condition), or otherwise the spacetime develops pathologies.

So although you can't see why a priori, a few calculations show you that they are the only choice which is well defined.
 
One should, however, note that of course you can write also QFT for a thermalized system in a manifestly covariant way. You just make explicit that usually one measures energies in the restframe of the heatbath. Taking [itex]u=(1,\vec{v})/\sqrt{1-\vec{v}^2}[/itex] as the four-vector velocity of the heatbath in any inertial reference frame, you can write the Stat. Op. in the Lorentz-covariant way
[tex]\hat{R}=\frac{1}{Z} \exp(-\beta u \cdot \hat{P}),[/tex]
where [itex]\hat{P}[/itex] is the operator of total four-momentum of the system, which is a vector operator wrt. to Poincare transformations, and [itex]\beta[/itex] is the inverse temperature, which is a scalar by definition. There where early attempts to define temperature as some non-covariant quantity, but that's as misleading as defining a "relativistic mass" instead of using the invariant mass. Concerning temperature, it's defined as being measured by a thermodmeter that's at rest with respect to the heat-bath frame.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K