What is a "source term" & what is it physically in QFT?

  • Thread starter Thread starter "Don't panic!"
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Qft Term
Click For Summary
In the context of quantum field theory (QFT), a "source term" like J(x) in the Klein-Gordon equation represents an external influence that modifies the behavior of the field φ(x). This term can be interpreted physically as analogous to a force in classical mechanics, where a force applied to a system leads to a response, such as oscillation in a spring. The discussion highlights the relationship between source terms in differential equations and their role in generating dynamic behavior in fields, drawing parallels to concepts in electrodynamics. Understanding these source terms is crucial for grasping how fields propagate and interact in QFT. The introduction of a source term is not merely a mathematical convenience but serves a significant physical interpretation.
"Don't panic!"
Messages
600
Reaction score
8
Given an inhomogeneous ODE of the form $$a_{n}(x)y^{(n)}(x)+a_{n-1}(x)y^{(n-1)}(x)+\cdots +a_{2}(x)y''(x)+a_{1}(x)y'(x)+a_{0}(x)y(x)=f(x)$$ where ##y^{(n)}(x)\equiv \frac{d^{n}y(x)}{dx^{n}}##, why is the function ##f(x)## on the right hand side referred to as a "source term" ? In what way does it source left hand side (or the function ##y(x)##)?
The reason I ask as in quantum field theory the Feynman propagator for a scalar field ##\phi (x)## can be derived by considering the Klein-Gordon equation with a so-called "source term" ##J(x)##, i.e. $$\left(\Box +m^{2}\right)\phi (x)=J(x)$$ where ##\Box\equiv\eta^{\mu\nu}\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial x^{\mu}\partial x^{\nu}}##. I'm unsure as to how this should be interpreted physically, or whether it is just a useful mathematical trick that bears no physical interpretation?! (I understand the derivation of the Feynman propagator for a scalar field from this, but I'm unsure how to motivate the introduction of the source term ##J(x)## on the right hand side of the K-G equation?!)

N.B. I originally posted this in the differential equations forum, but it was suggested that perhaps it would be more suited in this forum, given what the question is relating to.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"Don't panic!" said:
why is the function f(x) on the right hand side referred to as a "source term" ?
In many simple but paradigmatic situations it is a force switched on at time ##t=0##. For ##t<0## the system is on its own, for ##t>0## it responds to the force. Thus the force is the source of the modified behavior. For example, you put a weight on a spring and it starts oscillating.
 
Did you study electrodynamics? I hope so, this comes before QM which comes before QFT (in a normal university syllabus), so this discipline should teach you about wave equations and field sources.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
dextercioby said:
Did you study electrodynamics? I hope so, this comes before QM which comes before QFT (in a normal university syllabus), so this discipline should teach you about wave equations and field sources.

Yes, I did (although it's been a while since I learned it), but I guess I was just viewing the scalar field differently for some reason :-\

For example, I get that in classical electrodynamics the electric current density ##\mathbf{J}## (along with a time varying electric field) sources a spatially varying magnetic field. Can one translate this over to QFT to say that ##J(x)## sources a propagating scalar field of mass ##m##?

(Could one think of it classically in terms of a force, e.g. from Newton's 2nd law we could say that a force ##\mathbf{f}## sources an acceleration ##\mathbf{a}## of a particle of mass ##m##, i.e. ##\mathbf{f}=m\mathbf{a}##? Would be fair to say that this is the classical analogue of ##\left(\Box +m^{2}\right)\phi (x)=J(x)##? [In this sense, ##J(x)## would be acting on the field ##\phi## sourcing a propagation in the field]).
 
Last edited:
Electrodynamics explains to you what a source term is. A QFT book emphasizing the relevance was written by David Bailin and Alexander Love. "Introduction to gauge Field theory", IOP, 1993.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K