What is the basic scheme of quantum field theories?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the basic framework and principles of quantum field theory (QFT), comparing it to classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. Participants explore the foundational equations, the role of time evolution, and the implications of relativistic effects in QFT, including its limitations and alternative approaches.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants describe classical mechanics and quantum mechanics as frameworks where equations govern the evolution of systems, questioning how this translates to QFT.
  • Others mention the Dirac and Klein-Gordon equations as important in both relativistic quantum mechanics (RQM) and QFT, along with the Ward-Takahashi identity as a generalization of Noether's theorem.
  • It is proposed that QFT does not allow for straightforward time evolution calculations due to issues with the Hamiltonian and divergent counterterms, with the S-matrix being the primary calculable entity.
  • A participant cites a quote suggesting that detailed time descriptions in QFT may be unnecessary, as only scattering experiments are observable.
  • Some express curiosity about the relationship between QFT and standard quantum mechanics, particularly regarding the double slit experiment and the nature of wavefunction interference.
  • Alternative approaches to QFT, such as those proposed by E. Stefanovich, are mentioned, suggesting a reformulation that resembles ordinary quantum mechanics.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of special relativity in the context of QFT and whether fields can be considered as particles.
  • Some participants argue that the standard approach to QFT does not allow for a simple time-evolving function, as this conflicts with the principles of relativity.
  • It is noted that non-perturbative QFT work exists that studies effects beyond the S-matrix framework.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views regarding the nature of time evolution in QFT, the role of the S-matrix, and the validity of alternative formulations. There is no consensus on a singular "basic scheme" for QFT, and multiple competing perspectives remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the standard approach to QFT, particularly regarding time evolution and the interpretation of quantum fields. The dependence on specific definitions and the unresolved nature of certain mathematical steps are acknowledged.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in the foundational aspects of quantum field theory, its comparison to classical and quantum mechanics, and alternative theoretical approaches may find this discussion relevant.

jonjacson
Messages
450
Reaction score
38
In classical mechanics I would say:
a particle can have any initial position and velocities, Newton laws give you the evolution of the particle:
F=ma , is the basic equation, if you know the forces acting on the particle by solving this equation you get the future values for velocity and position

In quantum mechanics:
The "particle" is characterized by a wavefunction that can be used to calculate the probability of finding the particle at certain position or momentum.
If you know the wavefunction you plug it into the Schrödinger equation and you get the evolution on time of this wavefunction.

Can anybody tell me a similar basic scheme for quantum field theory? For example, in QED, Is there a basic differential equation? What about QCD?

Thanks for your time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Dirac equation and Klein-Gordon equation.
They appear in RQM, they also appear in QFT but there we have Ward-Takahashi identity which is a generalization of Noether's theorem.
 
MathematicalPhysicist said:
Dirac equation and Klein-Gordon equation.
They appear in RQM, they also appear in QFT but there we have Ward-Takahashi identity which is a generalization of Noether's theorem.

So if you know how to solve the dirac equation you can predict the future behavior of the particle?
 
QFT does not allow you to calculate the time evolution, because the Hamiltonian (=the generator of time evolution) of QFT is badly damaged by the presence of divergent counterterms. QFT can only calculate the S-matrix, which is a mapping of states from the infinite past to the infinite future. From the calculated S-matrix you can extract scattering cross-sections and energies/lifetimes of bound states. That's all you can do with the textbook QFT.

"The more one thinks about this situation, the more one is led to the conclusion that one should not insist on a detailed description of the system in time. From the physical point of view, this is not so surprising, because in contrast to non-relativistic quantum mechanics, the time behavior of a relativistic system with creation and annihilation of particles is unobservable. Essentially only scattering experiments are possible, therefore we retreat to scattering theory. One learns modesty in field theory." G. Scharf, Finite quantum electrodynamics. The causal approach, 1995.

Eugene.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: lowlize, dextercioby and jonjacson
meopemuk said:
QFT does not allow you to calculate the time evolution, because the Hamiltonian (=the generator of time evolution) of QFT is badly damaged by the presence of divergent counterterms. QFT can only calculate the S-matrix, which is a mapping of states from the infinite past to the infinite future. From the calculated S-matrix you can extract scattering cross-sections and energies/lifetimes of bound states. That's all you can do with the textbook QFT.

"The more one thinks about this situation, the more one is led to the conclusion that one should not insist on a detailed description of the system in time. From the physical point of view, this is not so surprising, because in contrast to non-relativistic quantum mechanics, the time behavior of a relativistic system with creation and annihilation of particles is unobservable. Essentially only scattering experiments are possible, therefore we retreat to scattering theory. One learns modesty in field theory." G. Scharf, Finite quantum electrodynamics. The causal approach, 1995.

Eugene.

Do you mean there is more QFT than what I can find on a textbook?

Your answer is what I was looking for, thank you so much to clarify a little bit what that theory is.
 
meopemuk said:
QFT does not allow you to calculate the time evolution, because the Hamiltonian (=the generator of time evolution) of QFT is badly damaged by the presence of divergent counterterms. QFT can only calculate the S-matrix, which is a mapping of states from the infinite past to the infinite future. From the calculated S-matrix you can extract scattering cross-sections and energies/lifetimes of bound states. That's all you can do with the textbook QFT.

"The more one thinks about this situation, the more one is led to the conclusion that one should not insist on a detailed description of the system in time. From the physical point of view, this is not so surprising, because in contrast to non-relativistic quantum mechanics, the time behavior of a relativistic system with creation and annihilation of particles is unobservable. Essentially only scattering experiments are possible, therefore we retreat to scattering theory. One learns modesty in field theory." G. Scharf, Finite quantum electrodynamics. The causal approach, 1995.

Eugene.

And I am thinking about it, you must be able to reproduce any calculation made by the simpler quantum mechanics theory right? If so, how do you explain the double slit experiment? For example.

In quantum mechanics the wavefunction interferes with itself, is that correct?

What is the explanation of the experiment according to qft?
 
jonjacson said:
Do you mean there is more QFT than what I can find on a textbook?

To go beyond textbooks you can try "E. Stefanovich, Elementary particle theory. Vol. 1-3, De Gruyter, Berlin. 2018".
The idea there is to reformulate QFT in a language similar to ordinary quantum mechanics: with wave functions, finite Hamiltonians, and well-defined time evolution.

Eugene.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby and jonjacson
meopemuk said:
To go beyond textbooks you can try "E. Stefanovich, Elementary particle theory. Vol. 1-3, De Gruyter, Berlin. 2018".
The idea there is to reformulate QFT in a language similar to ordinary quantum mechanics: with wave functions, finite Hamiltonians, and well-defined time evolution.

Eugene.

I thought doing that was not possible according to your previous post.

Anyway I will purchase those three books and have a look.

Your help is very helpful, thanks.
 
Moderator's note: thread level changed to "I".
 
  • #10
Eugene, according to Stefanovich special relativy is violated and fields are just particles? They say Pizella observed that in the laboratory.
 
  • #11
jonjacson said:
I thought doing that was not possible according to your previous post.

I think he meant that the standard way of doing QFT does not allow you to do that. Stefanovich's textbook, as I understand it, is an alternate approach to the entire subject.

jonjacson said:
Can anybody tell me a similar basic scheme for quantum field theory?

Not if by "basic scheme" you mean "describe the system by some function that evolves in time according to a differential equation".

If you think about it, such a scheme can't work as it stands in a relativistic theory, because "evolves in time" presupposes that "time" has a definite, absolute meaning. But in relativity, it doesn't; only spacetime is absolute, space and time are relative. (To put it another way, describing a relativistic system by a function that evolves in time according to a differential equation would mean picking out some particular reference frame as the "real" or "preferred" one, which is inconsistent with the principle of relativity.)

What standard QFT does, instead, is to redescribe everything in terms of operators that act at particular events, i.e., points in spacetime. In other words, "quantum fields" are not like ordinary fields that you're used to: they're not numbers that describe the state of something at a particular time (or time and place). They are operators that act at particular points in spacetime to produce measurement results.

meopemuk said:
QFT can only calculate the S-matrix

I think this is a bit pessimistic. There is a lot of work done in non-perturbative QFT and studying effects that cannot be modeled by an S-matrix.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: lowlize, Peter Morgan and bhobba
  • #12
jonjacson said:
you must be able to reproduce any calculation made by the simpler quantum mechanics theory right?

Yes, but the way this is done is to show that, under appropriate conditions, standard non-relativistic QM is a valid approximation to QFT. Then you just show that those conditions apply to a particular problem (such as the double slit) and do the calculation using standard non-relativistic QM just as you did before. Nobody tries to calculate things using full-blown QFT that can be adequately calculated using standard non-relativistic QM; it would just take a lot more time and effort to get the same answer.
 
  • #13
PeterDonis said:
Yes, but the way this is done is to show that, under appropriate conditions, standard non-relativistic QM is a valid approximation to QFT. Then you just show that those conditions apply to a particular problem (such as the double slit) and do the calculation using standard non-relativistic QM just as you did before. Nobody tries to calculate things using full-blown QFT that can be adequately calculated using standard non-relativistic QM; it would just take a lot more time and effort to get the same answer.
But for an student it would be very useful to grasp the topic, I guess.
 
  • #14
PeterDonis said:
I think he meant that the standard way of doing QFT does not allow you to do that. Stefanovich's textbook, as I understand it, is an alternate approach to the entire subject.
Not if by "basic scheme" you mean "describe the system by some function that evolves in time according to a differential equation".

If you think about it, such a scheme can't work as it stands in a relativistic theory, because "evolves in time" presupposes that "time" has a definite, absolute meaning. But in relativity, it doesn't; only spacetime is absolute, space and time are relative. (To put it another way, describing a relativistic system by a function that evolves in time according to a differential equation would mean picking out some particular reference frame as the "real" or "preferred" one, which is inconsistent with the principle of relativity.)

What standard QFT does, instead, is to redescribe everything in terms of operators that act at particular events, i.e., points in spacetime. In other words, "quantum fields" are not like ordinary fields that you're used to: they're not numbers that describe the state of something at a particular time (or time and place). They are operators that act at particular points in spacetime to produce measurement results.
I think this is a bit pessimistic. There is a lot of work done in non-perturbative QFT and studying effects that cannot be modeled by an S-matrix.

Well by basic scheme I mean what you say at the end of your post, when you start with: "What standard QFT does, instead...:" , that is what I am interested in. In having a global picture, or approximate picture on the theory.
 
  • #15
QFT says that the fundamental quantities you can observe are fields, e.g. a scalar field ##\phi(x)## and also functions of those fields and their derivatives e.g. ##\phi^{2}\partial_{\mu}\phi(x)##. Here function can also mean integrals of the fields, included weighted integrals where the field is weighted against a function e.g. ##\int{\phi^{3}(x)g(x)d^{4}x}##. Being mathematically precise only such weighted integrals are valid observables.

The theory describes the statistics of such field observables by assigning to each observable, ##A##, an expectation value ##<A>##. This is accomplished by the state ##\rho##, a mathematical machine that maps each observable to its expectation: ##\rho: A \rightarrow <A>##. If this ##\rho## is a pure state (minimum entropy), it is equivalent to an element of a vector space called a Hilbert space and then we have ##\rho(A) = (\psi,A\psi)##, with ##A## now an operator on this Hilbert space. (I'm assuming you know QM here given the I level)

The most interesting pseudo-expectation values are correlation functions, expectations of the fields at different points, e.g. ##\rho(\phi(x)\phi(y))##. I say pseudo-expectation value (not a standard term, just for exposition here) because as above unweighted fields are not strictly observable, but nevertheless you obtain much of the physics from calculating these correlation functions.

Time evolution is described via the Hamiltonian observable which is (like all observables) a function of the fields.

We have a method known as perturbation theory which allows us to compute the correlation functions.

However for most situations in QFT the calculations are prohibitively difficult.

The most tractable situation is one involving very simple states which in the far past or far future look like states from a free field theory. These asymptotically free states are often called particles, though they only behave like particles at asymptotic times. One then has a quantity, the S-matrix. The S-matrix roughly has the form ##S_{nm}##, whose modulus squared is the chance to go from ##n##-th in-state ##m##-th out-state.

Via something called the LSZ formula, it turns out the S-matrix can be obtained from the correlation functions. From above, this ultimately means particle to particle transitions can be computed via perturbation theory.

So we have these states that look like particles in the far past and the far future. We can prepare the former in many ways (e.g. proton beam) and we can detect the latter in many ways (e.g. detectors in the LHC). Thus this particular set up is both mathematically and experimentally tractable and it is how we have tested QFT in the main.

The case of looking at things at finite times is much less developed. Also bound states like Hydrogen. Even for the simple particle-to-particle case above perturbation theory doesn't always work if the interactions are too strong. We know that in general even the concept of particle breaks down in these theories and can be observer dependent, however up to now this has mattered little due to the way we test the theories.

Just like QM, QFT seems to be simply a probability calculus for observing quantities that are somewhat like classical fields in form, or in certain limited situations particles. I say "somewhat" because their statistics are radically different. However no "narrative" is provided as to what (if anything) generates those statistics. That's the old issue of interpreting QM, for which QFT seems to provide little additional insight currently.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby, king vitamin, bhobba and 1 other person
  • #16
meopemuk said:
To go beyond textbooks you can try "E. Stefanovich, Elementary particle theory. Vol. 1-3, De Gruyter, Berlin. 2018".
The idea there is to reformulate QFT in a language similar to ordinary quantum mechanics: with wave functions, finite Hamiltonians, and well-defined time evolution.
You forgot to say that this is your book, with a nonstandard reformulation that sacrifices Lorentz invariance and allows faster than light phenomena...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby, Peter Morgan, king vitamin and 2 others
  • #17
DarMM said:
QFT says that the fundamental quantities you can observe are fields, e.g. a scalar field ##\phi(x)## and also functions of those fields and their derivatives e.g. ##\phi^{2}\partial_{\mu}\phi(x)##. Here function can also mean integrals of the fields, included weighted integrals where the field is weighted against a function e.g. ##\int{\phi^{3}(x)g(x)d^{4}x}##. Being mathematically precise only such weighted integrals are valid observables.

The theory describes the statistics of such field observables by assigning to each observable, ##A##, an expectation value ##<A>##. This is accomplished by the state ##\rho##, a mathematical machine that maps each observable to its expectation: ##\rho: A \rightarrow <A>##. If this ##\rho## is a pure state (minimum entropy), it is equivalent to an element of a vector space called a Hilbert space and then we have ##\rho(A) = (\psi,A\psi)##, with ##A## now an operator on this Hilbert space. (I'm assuming you know QM here given the I level)

The most interesting pseudo-expectation values are correlation functions, expectations of the fields at different points, e.g. ##\rho(\phi(x)\phi(y))##. I say pseudo-expectation value (not a standard term, just for exposition here) because as above unweighted fields are not strictly observable, but nevertheless you obtain much of the physics from calculating these correlation functions.

Time evolution is described via the Hamiltonian observable which is (like all observables) a function of the fields.

We have a method known as perturbation theory which allows us to compute the correlation functions.

However for most situations in QFT the calculations are prohibitively difficult.

The most tractable situation is one involving very simple states which in the far past or far future look like states from a free field theory. These asymptotically free states are often called particles, though they only behave like particles at asymptotic times. One then has a quantity, the S-matrix. The S-matrix roughly has the form ##S_{nm}##, whose modulus squared is the chance to go from ##n##-th in-state ##m##-th out-state.

Via something called the LSZ formula, it turns out the S-matrix can be obtained from the correlation functions. From above, this ultimately means particle to particle transitions can be computed via perturbation theory.

So we have these states that look like particles in the far past and the far future. We can prepare the former in many ways (e.g. proton beam) and we can detect the latter in many ways (e.g. detectors in the LHC). Thus this particular set up is both mathematically and experimentally tractable and it is how we have tested QFT in the main.

The case of looking at things at finite times is much less developed. Also bound states like Hydrogen. Even for the simple particle-to-particle case above perturbation theory doesn't always work if the interactions are too strong. We know that in general even the concept of particle breaks down in these theories and can be observer dependent, however up to now this has mattered little due to the way we test the theories.

Just like QM, QFT seems to be simply a probability calculus for observing quantities that are somewhat like classical fields in form, or in certain limited situations particles. I say "somewhat" because their statistics are radically different. However no "narrative" is provided as to what (if anything) generates those statistics. That's the old issue of interpreting QM, for which QFT seems to provide little additional insight currently.

Great, this is the stuff I wanted to read when I opened the thread. Thank you so much.

In regards of the complexity of solving this equations, I have found a book called "molecular quantum electrodynamics". I guess dramatic aproximations will be made in order to use this theory for N body systems, Is this correct?

So QED is so difficult that it is not used in biochemistry, Am I correct?
 
  • #18
A. Neumaier said:
You forgot to say that this is your book, with a nonstandard reformulation that sacrifices Lorentz invariance and allows faster than light phenomena...

This post was totally unexpected, interesting.o_O
 
  • #19
jonjacson said:
This post was totally unexpected, interesting.o_O
The book gives a minority view based on an extreme distrust (and lack of understanding) of field theory.
jonjacson said:
So QED is so difficult that it is not used in biochemistry
One uses simpler approximations (deduced from QED) in all of quantum chemistry, whether bio or not. Primarily nonrelativistic approximations with some relativistic corrections (where needed). This already gives a Hamiltonian multiparticle description - fields only contribute to the terms in the Hamiltonian. Then further simplification using theBorn-Oppenheimer approximation, then more and more further approximations the bigger the number of electrons.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby, jonjacson and bhobba
  • #20
jonjacson said:
In quantum mechanics:
The "particle" is characterized by a wavefunction that can be used to calculate the probability of finding the particle at certain position or momentum.
If you know the wavefunction you plug it into the Schrödinger equation and you get the evolution on time of this wavefunction.

In condensed matter, quantum field theory is simply an equivalent way of formulating quantum mechanics for many identical particles. The translation between the quantum mechanics you have described and the quantum mechanics of quantum field theory is called "second quantization" (a confusing name, used for historical reasons).
https://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~changmc/Teach/SM/ch01.pdf
http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/b6/psfiles/Chapter-2-qftc3.pdf
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jonjacson and bhobba
  • #21
atyy said:
In condensed matter, quantum field theory is simply an equivalent way of formulating quantum mechanics for many identical particles.
But this does not apply for QED and QCD, which appear in post #1.
 
  • #23
A. Neumaier said:
The book gives a minority view based on an extreme distrust (and lack of understanding) of field theory.

One uses simpler approximations (deduced from QED) in all of quantum chemistry, whether bio or not. Primarily nonrelativistic approximations with some relativistic corrections (where needed). This already gives a Hamiltonian multiparticle description - fields only contribute to the terms in the Hamiltonian. Then further simplification using theBorn-Oppenheimer approximation, then more and more further approximations the bigger the number of electrons.

Thank you so much.

atyy said:
In condensed matter, quantum field theory is simply an equivalent way of formulating quantum mechanics for many identical particles. The translation between the quantum mechanics you have described and the quantum mechanics of quantum field theory is called "second quantization" (a confusing name, used for historical reasons).
https://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~changmc/Teach/SM/ch01.pdf
http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/b6/psfiles/Chapter-2-qftc3.pdf

Nice reads, thanks!
 
  • #24
jonjacson said:
In classical mechanics I would say:
a particle can have any initial position and velocities, Newton laws give you the evolution of the particle:
F=ma , is the basic equation, if you know the forces acting on the particle by solving this equation you get the future values for velocity and position

In quantum mechanics:
The "particle" is characterized by a wavefunction that can be used to calculate the probability of finding the particle at certain position or momentum.
If you know the wavefunction you plug it into the Schrödinger equation and you get the evolution on time of this wavefunction.

Can anybody tell me a similar basic scheme for quantum field theory? For example, in QED, Is there a basic differential equation? What about QCD?
In QFT, the wave function gets generalized to a wave functional. If the wave function at a fixed time is ##\psi({\bf x})##, then the wave functional at a fixed time is ##\Psi[\phi]##, where ##\phi## is the set of values of the field ##\phi({\bf x})## at all points ##{\bf x}##. There is a differential equation (the so called functional Schrödinger equation) that describes how ##\Psi[\phi]## changes with time, in very much same the way as the ordinary Schrödinger equation describes how ##\psi({\bf x})## changes with time.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: king vitamin
  • #25
Demystifier said:
In QFT, the wave function gets generalized to a wave functional. If the wave function at a fixed time is ##\psi({\bf x})##, then the wave functional at a fixed time is ##\Psi[\phi]##, where ##\phi## is the set of values of the field ##\phi({\bf x})## at all points ##{\bf x}##. There is a differential equation (the so called functional Schrödinger equation) that describes how ##\Psi[\phi]## changes with time, in very much same the way as the ordinary Schrödinger equation describes how ##\psi({\bf x})## changes with time.

WHy is that each one of you gives me a different version?:biggrin:

I will search info about wave functionals.

I appreciate any comment really, thank you so much.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Peter Morgan, atyy and Demystifier
  • #26
jonjacson said:
WHy is that each one of you gives me a different version?:biggrin:
Because there are many equivalent ways to represent QFT. The one I mentioned is the closest to the Schrödinger picture of ordinary QM. But it is not very convenient in practice, so practical physicists usually ignore it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jonjacson
  • #27
jonjacson said:
WHy is that each one of you gives me a different version?:biggrin:

I will search info about wave functionals.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0201360799/?tag=pfamazon01-20 talks about the Schroedinger picture wave functional formulation (mentioned by @Demystifier), and its equivalence to the more usual Heisenberg picture formulation of QFT.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jonjacson and Demystifier
  • #28
Demystifier said:
Because there are many equivalent ways to represent QFT. The one I mentioned is the closest to the Schrödinger picture of ordinary QM. But it is not very convenient in practice, so practical physicists usually ignore it.

I understand, thanks.

atyy said:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0201360799/?tag=pfamazon01-20 talks about the Schroedinger picture wave functional formulation (mentioned by @Demystifier), and its equivalence to the more usual Heisenberg picture formulation of QFT.

Well, the book looks ambitious, it says they present string theory assuming you don't know quantum field theory so they explain you in the first part of the book. That has to be very interesting.
 
  • #29
jonjacson said:
WHy is that each one of you gives me a different version?:biggrin:

I will search info about wave functionals.

I appreciate any comment really, thank you so much.
As mentioned above there are many ways of formulating Quantum Field Theory.

The Wavefunctional approach is the form most closely related to the way people normally do non-relativistic QM. However solving for the Wave Functional or Wave Functional eigenvalue problems are virtually impossible outside of free field theories, so people usually use the method of calculating the correlation functions I mentioned. Non-relativistic QM can also be expressed via correlation functions just to be clear.

One thing I didn't mention in my post is renormalization. When we write down QFT we often make use of expressions like ##\phi^{3}(x)##. However because the object ##\phi(x)## is so singular, it turns out that ##\phi^{3}(x)## isn't a well defined mathematical expression. So one has to attempt to define a quantity similar to ##\phi^{3}(x)## that is well defined: ##[\phi^{3}(x)]_R##.

I'll give an example using plain old functions. Say you have the Heaviside function ##\Theta(x)## and the function ##\frac{1}{x}##. We have their multiple ##\frac{\Theta(x)}{x}##. However consider the following integral:
$$\int_{\mathbb{R}}{\frac{\Theta(x)}{x}g(x)dx} = \int^{\infty}_{0}{\frac{g(x)}{x}dx}$$
with ##g## some function. The ##\Theta## function has been used to restrict the integral in the second expression.
In general this will diverge if ##g## is non-zero about the point ##x = 0##.
However the following modified version of the integral is well-defined:
$$\int^{a}_{0}{\frac{g(x) - g(0)}{x}dx} + \int^{\infty}_{a}{\frac{g(x)}{x}dx}$$
So we isolate the problematic region and add a term that removes the divergence.
This can be rewritten as:
$$\int^{\infty}_{0}{\frac{g(x)}{x}dx} - \int^{a}_{0}{\frac{g(0)}{x}dx}$$
And since ##g(0)## can be obtained from a delta function, we can further rewrite it as:
$$\int^{\infty}_{0}{\frac{g(x)}{x}dx} - \left(\int^{a}_{0}{\frac{1}{x}dx}\right)\int{\delta(x)g(x)dx}$$

Finally if we put back in the Heaviside function, this can be written as:
$$\int_{\mathbb{R}}{\left[\frac{\Theta(x)}{x} - \left(\int^{a}_{0}{\frac{1}{x}dx}\right)\delta(x)\right]g(x)dx}$$

So we see that:
$$\frac{\Theta(x)}{x} - \left(\int^{a}_{0}{\frac{1}{x}dx}\right)\delta(x)$$
is a modified version of:
$$\frac{\Theta(x)}{x}$$
that produces well defined integrals.

The physicist way of doing this is to call
$$\left(\int^{a}_{0}{\frac{1}{x}dx}\right)\delta(x)$$
a counterterm and to consider
$$\left(\int^{a}_{0}{\frac{1}{x}dx}\right)$$
to define an "infinite constant" ##C_a##. So they would write:

$$\left[\frac{\Theta(x)}{x}\right]_R = \frac{\Theta(x)}{x} - C_a\delta(x)$$

In physics language you obtain a version of the product of the Heaviside step function and ##\frac{1}{x}## that behaves well under integrals by subtracting off a counterterm which has an infinite constant. This "well behaved" version is called "renormalized".

For some Quantum Field Theories the terms you have to add are no problem. For instance ##\phi^{4}## theory in three dimensions requires:
$$\left[\phi^{4}\right]_R = \phi^{4} - \delta m^{2}\phi^{2}$$

That is making the ##\phi^{4}## interaction well-defined requires adding a counterterm with the ##\phi^{2}## term. However since the Lagrangian already has a ##\phi^{2}## this is no problem, it doesn't change the character of the theory.

However some theories require the addition of new terms to their Lagrangian to be well defined. If this process doesn't stop, i.e. the new terms then need further new terms, the theory is called non-renormalizable.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: lowlize, dextercioby and jonjacson
  • #30
DarMM said:
As mentioned above there are many ways of formulating Quantum Field Theory.

The Wavefunctional approach is the form most closely related to the way people normally do non-relativistic QM. However solving for the Wave Functional or Wave Functional eigenvalue problems are virtually impossible outside of free field theories, so people usually use the method of calculating the correlation functions I mentioned. Non-relativistic QM can also be expressed via correlation functions just to be clear.

One thing I didn't mention in my post is renormalization. When we write down QFT we often make use of expressions like ##\phi^{3}(x)##. However because the object ##\phi(x)## is so singular, it turns out that ##\phi^{3}(x)## isn't a well defined mathematical expression. So one has to attempt to define a quantity similar to ##\phi^{3}(x)## that is well defined: ##[\phi^{3}(x)]_R##.

I'll give an example using plain old functions. Say you have the Heaviside function ##\Theta(x)## and the function ##\frac{1}{x}##. We have their multiple ##\frac{\Theta(x)}{x}##. However consider the following integral:
$$\int_{\mathbb{R}}{\frac{\Theta(x)}{x}g(x)dx} = \int^{\infty}_{0}{\frac{g(x)}{x}dx}$$
with ##g## some function. The ##\Theta## function has been used to restrict the integral in the second expression.
In general this will diverge if ##g## is non-zero about the point ##x = 0##.
However the following modified version of the integral is well-defined:
$$\int^{a}_{0}{\frac{g(x) - g(0)}{x}dx} + \int^{\infty}_{a}{\frac{g(x)}{x}dx}$$
So we isolate the problematic region and add a term that removes the divergence.
This can be rewritten as:
$$\int^{\infty}_{0}{\frac{g(x)}{x}dx} - \int^{a}_{0}{\frac{g(0)}{x}dx}$$
And since ##g(0)## can be obtained from a delta function, we can further rewrite it as:
$$\int^{\infty}_{0}{\frac{g(x)}{x}dx} - \left(\int^{a}_{0}{\frac{1}{x}dx}\right)\int{\delta(x)g(x)dx}$$

Finally if we put back in the Heaviside function, this can be written as:
$$\int_{\mathbb{R}}{\left[\frac{\Theta(x)}{x} - \left(\int^{a}_{0}{\frac{1}{x}dx}\right)\delta(x)\right]g(x)dx}$$

So we see that:
$$\frac{\Theta(x)}{x} - \left(\int^{a}_{0}{\frac{1}{x}dx}\right)\delta(x)$$
is a modified version of:
$$\frac{\Theta(x)}{x}$$
that produces well defined integrals.

The physicist way of doing this is to call
$$\left(\int^{a}_{0}{\frac{1}{x}dx}\right)\delta(x)$$
a counterterm and to consider
$$\left(\int^{a}_{0}{\frac{1}{x}dx}\right)$$
to define an "infinite constant" ##C_a##. So they would write:

$$\left[\frac{\Theta(x)}{x}\right]_R = \frac{\Theta(x)}{x} - C_a\delta(x)$$

In physics language you obtain a version of the product of the Heaviside step function and ##\frac{1}{x}## that behaves well under integrals by subtracting off a counterterm which has an infinite constant. This "well behaved" version is called "renormalized".

For some Quantum Field Theories the terms you have to add are no problem. For instance ##\phi^{4}## theory in three dimensions requires:
$$\left[\phi^{4}\right]_R = \phi^{4} - \delta m^{2}\phi^{2}$$

That is making the ##\phi^{4}## interaction well-defined requires adding a counterterm with the ##\phi^{2}## term. However since the Lagrangian already has a ##\phi^{2}## this is no problem, it doesn't change the character of the theory.

However some theories require the addition of new terms to their Lagrangian to be well defined. If this process doesn't stop, i.e. the new terms then need further new terms, the theory is called non-renormalizable.

And do we know the physical reason behind a theory being or not being renormalizable?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 134 ·
5
Replies
134
Views
12K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 182 ·
7
Replies
182
Views
16K