B What is a non-local Hamiltonian?

lindberg
Messages
40
Reaction score
20
TL;DR Summary
Can someone explain in simple terms (high-school) how a Hamiltonian can be non-local?
If I understand it correctly, the Hamiltonian represents the total energy of the system. Can it be non-local? If yes, doesn't this contradict relativistic locality?
 
  • Like
Likes atyy
Physics news on Phys.org
It's nonlocal if the energy (density) at spacetime point x also depends instantaneously on point x+y. Yes, that violates relativity.

This happens e.g. if the hamiltonian contains a term f(x)f(x+y), where f is the general field.

More concrete example: the energy density of an electromagnetic field contains a term E^2(x) with E the electric field. Replace it with E(x)E(x+y) and your energy density (Hamiltonian) becomes nonlocal.
 
  • Like
Likes FuzzySphere, atyy, lindberg and 1 other person
  • Like
Likes atyy and vanhees71
Well, look where it had been published...
 
vanhees71 said:
Well, look where it had been published...
What do you mean? Is it the same "Oh, 《Foundations of Physics》is really badly peer-reviewed!", or what?
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
dextercioby said:
What do you mean? Is it the same "Oh, 《Foundations of Physics》is really badly peer-reviewed!", or what?
I think @vanhees71 has a low opinion on this journal, probably because it deals with questions which are partially philosophical. I would like to stress that this journal has very distinguished editors. Now it is Carlo Rovelli (most famous for his work in loop quantum gravity), and before him it was the Nobel laureate G. 't Hooft.
 
  • Like
Likes FuzzySphere, vanhees71, malawi_glenn and 1 other person
Well, I often wonder, whether this is still a physics journal ;-)).
 
  • Love
Likes malawi_glenn
vanhees71 said:
Well, I often wonder, whether this is still a physics journal ;-)).
Of course it isn't, it is a foundations of physics journal. Foundations of physics is not physics. More generally, foundations of X studies what is X based on, and no X is based on itself. :oldbiggrin:
 
  • Like
Likes gentzen and vanhees71
@Demystifier so wait, what is Physics based on then?
And back to my original question: isn't it a problem that to formulate an alternative to GR, they give up the locality of the Hamiltonian? It seems like a big problem. Isn't experiment ruling this out?
 
  • #10
lindberg said:
what is Physics based on then?
Physics is based on the scientific method. An interplay between experiments, measurments, observations with mathematical models and theories.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby and vanhees71
  • #11
lindberg said:
@Demystifier so wait, what is Physics based on then?
The answer depends on what kind of answer do you expect. For example, if the question was "What is chemistry based on?", what would be your answer? Would it be - physics?
lindberg said:
And back to my original question: isn't it a problem that to formulate an alternative to GR, they give up the locality of the Hamiltonian? It seems like a big problem. Isn't experiment ruling this out?
What experiment? Sure, many experiments rule out non-local Hamiltonians in various contexts, but I am not aware of any experiment that rules it out in the cosmological context.
 
  • #12
malawi_glenn said:
Physics is based on the scientific method. An interplay between experiments, measurments, observations with mathematical models and theories.
Yes, but you can hardly find this definition of the scientific method in science books. It's much more likely that you will find it in books on philosophy of science.
 
  • Love
Likes malawi_glenn
  • #13
Demystifier said:
Yes, but you can hardly find this definition of the scientific method in science books. It's much more likely that you will find it in books on philosophy of science.
Exactly, the scientific method is not scientific so to say :)
 
  • Love
Likes Demystifier
  • #14
vanhees71 said:
Well, I often wonder, whether this is still a physics journal ;-)).
I remember, in the 1990’s, and at the tea room of the physics department of Birkbeck College, that journal was the subject of almost monthly jokes. The one that I still remember is: “It is good to know that physics is not based on “FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS”” Prof. E. Leader
 
  • Haha
Likes dextercioby, vanhees71, atyy and 1 other person
  • #15
samalkhaiat said:
I remember, in the 1990’s, and at the tea room of the physics department of Birkbeck College, that journal was the subject of almost monthly jokes. The one that I still remember is: “It is good to know that physics is not based on “FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS”” Prof. E. Leader
I like the one by Feynman, not about the specific journal but about the whole field. Physics needs philosophy of physics as much as birds need ornithology.

BTW, there are also jokes about mathematical physicists, but I will save them for another occasion. :wink:
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes haushofer, malawi_glenn, vanhees71 and 1 other person
  • #16
haushofer said:
It's nonlocal if the energy (density) at spacetime point x also depends instantaneously on point x+y. Yes, that violates relativity.
Is this true? I thought one could write down non-local field theories that were still lorentz invariant.
 
  • #17
Can one? Do you have an example for such a theory? Is it consistent with observations?
 
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn
  • #18
Actions containing ##1/\Box## are nonlocal and Lorentz invariant, many effective theories (for otherwise local theories) have this form.
 
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn
  • #19
Demystifier said:
Actions containing ##1/\Box## are nonlocal and Lorentz invariant
I get Lorentz invariant--##\Box## is Lorentz invariant and so therefore is ##1 / \Box##--but how is it nonlocal?
 
  • #20
It's not unique, but one can define ##1/\Box## as, e.g., the retarded Green's function. Then it's an operator on an field ##J## defined by
$$\frac{1}{\Box} J(x)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^4} \mathrm{d}^4 x' G_{\text{ret}}(x-x') J(x')$$
with
$$G_{\text{ret}}(x)=\frac{\Theta(x^0)}{2 \pi} \delta(x \cdot x),$$
which is a scalar under proper orthochronous Lorentz transformations. It's nonlocal, because it depends on values of ##J## along the entire past light cone of the event ##x##.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier, dextercioby and malawi_glenn
  • #21
PeterDonis said:
I get Lorentz invariant--##\Box## is Lorentz invariant and so therefore is ##1 / \Box##--but how is it nonlocal?
@vanhees71 explained above.
 
Back
Top