I What's the deal with instantons?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter pines-demon
  • Start date Start date
pines-demon
Gold Member
2024 Award
Messages
978
Reaction score
822
I am reading Blundell and Lancaster and I am still lost to what they want me to understand about instantons.

So I get the following:
  • By calculating the propagator of a harmonic oscillator, then in Euclidean space the propagator of a potential with a single minima is ##\approx e^{-\omega \tau/2}##, which looks like decay, where ##\tau## is the Euclidean rotated time and ##\omega^2=V''(a)## where ##V(x)## is the potential with minima at #x=a##.
  • Then they go to a double well and say it is mostly the same with more semiclassics
  • They use an inflaton gas to show that the eingenstates of the double well can be approximated as superposition of wavefunctions localized in each side of the well
  • They calculate the decay rate and say that this could apply to the universe.
Can somebody motivate better what I am to learn about it? Is it just a different way to recover semiclassical results? Is it the non-perturbative aspect? Should I think of instantons as particles in any way? Is there anything interesting to the topological nature of instantons? What is a better introduction to instantons?
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
Physics news on Phys.org
What one really wants to compute is the tunneling amplitude between different vacua. Computing it exactly is complicated, so one uses the WKB approximation. But it turns out that the computation of tunneling WKB amplitude can mathematically be reduced to the computation of classical action with imaginary time (see e.g. Ryder's QFT book). This "imaginary time" is just a mathematical trick in a computation, the physical time is of course not imaginary. To compute the classical action you must first find the corresponding classical solutions. Those solutions have zero energy (because you consider the tunneling between different vacua, which have the same energy that can be taken to be zero), so these solutions, with imaginary time, turn out to be instantons. Those instantons don't exist in a physical sense, they are just a computational tool that arises as a part of the WKB method. Their topological properties are interesting because understanding them simplifies the computations.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes PeterDonis and pines-demon
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Back
Top