I Why do we assume particles are free at infinity in the S matrix theory?

Silviu
Messages
612
Reaction score
11
Hello! I am reading about the S matrix, and I see that one of the assumption that the derivations are based on is the fact that interacting particles are free at ##t=\pm \infty## and I am not sure I understand why. One of the given examples is the ##\phi^4## theory which contains an interaction term of the form ##\frac{\lambda}{4!}\phi(x)^4##. Why would this term vanish far away from our experiment. More concretely, if we would have an electron Dirac spinor field (assuming we collide electron and positrons), why would we assume that far from the experiment the electron is free? Isn't it still interacting with the vacuum QED i.e. the vacuum would be ##|\Omega>## and not ##|0>## no matter at which point we are (even at big distances from our collision point). Can someone explain this to me please? Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The interaction with the vacuum is treated separately as "property of the free electron". It is not part of the collision process.
 
mfb said:
The interaction with the vacuum is treated separately as "property of the free electron". It is not part of the collision process.
So from the point of view of the S matrix, an interacting particle with momentum p and a non-interacting particle with momentum p are identical at ##\pm \infty##? But the operators used to create a particle with momentum p i.e. ##a_p^\dagger## is different (they evolve differently in time) in the 2 theories as the vacuum is different?
 
Haag's theorem is irrelevant FAPP. See the excellent book

The conceptual framework of QFT, Oxford University Press

It's precisely filling the gaps Weinberg's three volumes leave.
 
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy
I recommend you read section 1 of this (available in the amazon preview) to see how insanely fundamental to relativistic quantum theory this issue is:

Page 3 said:
'the description of such a process as occurring in the course of time is therefore just as unreal as the classical paths are in non-relativistic quantum mechanics. The only observable quantities are the properties of free particles'
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top