What is the Number of Quarks Operator in Quantum Field Theory?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Einj
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operator Quarks
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the "number of valence quarks" operator in Quantum Field Theory (QFT), specifically defined as $$\hat N_{val}=\sum_f |\hat Q_f|$$ with $$\hat Q_f=\int d^3x \bar \psi_f\gamma_0\psi_f$$. The user initially miscalculated the valence quarks for the J/ψ particle, expecting N_{val}=0 but arriving at 2 due to incorrect operator ordering. The correct formulation requires using the "good order" prescription in canonical quantization, leading to the proper expression for the operator as $$\hat Q_c\sim(a_{\bar c}+a_c^\dagger)(a_c+a^\dagger_{\bar c})$$.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Quantum Field Theory (QFT)
  • Familiarity with creation and annihilation operators
  • Knowledge of canonical quantization techniques
  • Basic grasp of quark-antiquark dynamics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the "good order" prescription in canonical quantization
  • Explore the implications of operator ordering in QFT
  • Learn about valence quarks and their role in particle physics
  • Investigate the properties of the J/ψ particle and its quark content
USEFUL FOR

Particle physicists, quantum field theorists, and students studying the behavior of quarks and quantum operators in high-energy physics.

Einj
Messages
464
Reaction score
59
Hi everyone. In QFT one usually defines the "number of valence quarks" of a certain particle via the operator:
$$
\hat N_{val}=\sum_f |\hat Q_f|,$$
where:
$$
\hat Q_f=\int d^3x \bar \psi_f\gamma_0\psi_f.$$

According to this definition I expected, for example, for the J/\psi to have N_{val}=0, i.e. the same quantum numbers as the vacuum. However, I can't understand what I am doing wrong. Very roughly speaking, in terms of creation/annhilation operators we have:
$$
\hat Q_c\sim (a_{\bar c}+a_c^\dagger)(a_c+a_{\bar c}^\dagger)=a_{\bar c}a_c+a_{\bar c}a^\dagger_{\bar c}+a_ca_c^\dagger+a^\dagger_c a^\dagger_{\bar c}.
$$
Hence, when applied to the particle |J/\psi\rangle=|\bar c c\rangle is should give me:
$$
\hat Q_c|J/\psi\rangle\sim |0\rangle+2|\bar cc\rangle+|\bar c\bar ccc\rangle,
$$ thus giving a number of valence quarks equal to 2. What's wrong with my calculation?

Thanks a lot
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Einj said:
$$
\hat Q_c\sim (a_{\bar c}+a_c^\dagger)(a_c+a_{\bar c}^\dagger)=a_{\bar c}a_c+a_{\bar c}a^\dagger_{\bar c}+a_ca_c^\dagger+a^\dagger_c a^\dagger_{\bar c}.
$$
Isn't it N_c = a_c^\dagger a_c for the quarks and N_{\bar c} = a_{\bar c}^\dagger a_{\bar c} for the antiquarks? And then N = N_c - N_{\bar c} is zero for the J/ψ state.
 
Oh I think I got it. You are right. The point is that in the canonical quantization you need to write the operators using the "good order" prescription. I also wrote it incorrectly, we should have:
$$
\hat Q_c\sim(a_{\bar c}+a_c^\dagger)(a_c+a^\dagger_{\bar c})=a_{\bar c}a_c+a_{\bar c}a_{\bar c}^\dagger+a_c^\dagger a_c+a_c^\dagger a_{\bar c}^\dagger.
$$
In order to have the right order (annihilation on the left) you need to anticommute the second term, thus obtaining the extra minus sign.

Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
9K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
10K