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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the assumption in S matrix theory that interacting particles can be considered free at time \( t = \pm \infty \). Participants explore the implications of this assumption, particularly in the context of the \( \phi^4 \) theory and quantum electrodynamics (QED), questioning the validity of treating particles as free when they are still interacting with the vacuum state.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the interaction term in \( \phi^4 \) theory would vanish at large distances from the experiment, particularly in the context of electron-positron collisions.
  • Another participant suggests that the interaction with the vacuum is treated separately and does not affect the collision process, implying that the free electron's properties are distinct from the interactions occurring during the collision.
  • A participant raises a point about the difference in operators used to create particles in the two theories, noting that while the particles may be treated as identical at \( \pm \infty \), the operators evolve differently due to the differing vacuum states.
  • Links to Haag's theorem are provided, with one participant asserting its irrelevance in practical applications (FAPP) and recommending further reading on the conceptual framework of quantum field theory.
  • Another participant emphasizes the fundamental nature of the issue regarding the description of processes in relativistic quantum theory, suggesting that observable quantities pertain only to free particles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the treatment of vacuum interactions and the implications for the S matrix theory. There is no consensus on the validity of the assumption that particles are free at infinity, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of the assumptions involved in the treatment of particles at infinity, including the dependence on definitions of vacuum states and the implications of Haag's theorem, which remain unresolved in the discussion.

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   Reactions: 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'
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K