Are Equal-Time Commutators Essential in QFT?

In summary, the commutators in QFT are equal-time commutators because you need the covariant form of the commutators to understand what's going on. Without the covariant form, you would be left with a broken covariance between time and space.
  • #1
pellman
684
5
Why are the commutators in QFT equal-time commutators? I am talking about things like

[tex][\phi(x,t),\pi(x',t)]=i\delta (x-x')[/tex]

where pi is the canonically-conjugate momentum density to phi.

Shouldn't a relativistic approach treat time and space more equivalently? Something like

[tex][\phi(x,t),\pi(x',t')]=i\delta (x-x')\delta(t-t')[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You have to pick a frame to work in before you know what x and t are. Then, it's just standard QM that, in the Heisenberg picture, the simple commutators are at equal times. Eg, in QM, [itex][x,p]=i\hbar[/itex] in the Schrodinger picture becomes [itex][x(t),p(t)]=i\hbar[/itex] (that is, the equal-time commutator) in the Heisenberg picture.
 
  • #3
Avodyne said:
Eg, in QM, [itex][x,p]=i\hbar[/itex] in the Schrodinger picture becomes [itex][x(t),p(t)]=i\hbar[/itex] (that is, the equal-time commutator) in the Heisenberg picture.

thanks. But that's my point. It's just a leftover from non-relativistic QM. What am I missing?
 
  • #4
pellman said:
thanks. But that's my point. It's just a leftover from non-relativistic QM. What am I missing?

It depends the approach you follow to build the quantum field theory.


Most people like to postulate that the right approach is to quantize a classical field theory. They then postulate that the amplitude of the field is analoguous to a position and then the above ETCR follows from the generalization of QM to QFT.
So yes, in that sense, it follows by analogy with QM.

I personally don't like this approach (because there are two huge leaps of faith involved). I prefer much more the approach followed by Weinberg in his first QFT book which could be summarized as "particles first, then fields" instead of the above "fields first then particles". But most people on this borad (and most physicists in general I think) prefer the fields first approach.
 
  • #5
I like the idea of "particles first, then fields". But still, if it leads to the same commutators, then it must have some justification for the break in covariance. I will look through Weinberg.
 
  • #6
Are you sure it breaks covariance? Recall that
[tex]\pi = \frac{\delta S}{\delta \partial_0 \phi}[/tex],
so it is not a scalar field like [tex]\phi[/tex], but rather 1 component of a tensor [tex]\pi^\mu[/tex].

I think you can derive the ETCR from the time-ordered two-point function. So perhaps you want to figure out why that object manages to stay Lorentz invariant.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
pellman said:
Why are the commutators in QFT equal-time commutators? I am talking about things like

[tex][\phi(x,t),\pi(x',t)]=i\delta (x-x')[/tex]

where pi is the canonically-conjugate momentum density to phi.
You need the covariant form of the commutators to understand what's
really going on here...

Shouldn't a relativistic approach treat time and space more equivalently?
Something like

[tex][\phi(x,t),\pi(x',t')]=i\delta (x-x')\delta(t-t')[/tex]

The covariant commutators don't involve [itex]\delta(t-t')[/itex].
Rather, the RHS involves a propagator specific to the type of
field being considered. The relativistically-sensible propagators
reduce to something like [itex]\delta^{(3)}(x-x')[/itex] for
spacelike-separated x,x' and for that case it is possible to find
a frame of reference in which t = t', leading to the familiar
equal-time form of the CCRs.
 
  • #8
lbrits said:
Recall that
[tex]\pi = \frac{\delta S}{\delta \partial_0 \phi}[/tex],
so it is not a scalar field like [tex]\phi[/tex], but rather 1 component of a tensor [tex]\pi^\mu[/tex].


That's it. Thanks, lbrits!

and thanks also to strangerep. I actually typed up a lengthier response to your post but then I realized that lbrits explained where I was going wrong.
 
  • #9
From PCT, Spin and Statistics, and All That

In old-fashioned** field theory, this requirement [of local commutativity] was often met by assuming that the fields provided an irreducible set of operators satisfying the canonical commutation relations at a given time

[tex][\phi(x,t),\pi(x',t)]=i\delta (x-x')[/tex] (3-7)

However, (3-7) requires that the fields make sense as operators when smeared in x only, and this is an additional strong assumption which goes beyond our axioms. Furthermore there are hints from examples that, in general, [tex][\phi(x,t),(\partial\phi/\partial t')(x',t')][/tex] has singularities at [tex]t-t'=0[/tex], even after being smeared in x and x'. In this case it is difficult to given (3-7) a meaning. Thus, one is reluctant to accept canonical commutation relations as an indispensable requirement on a field theory.



** This was published in 1964!

when the authors talk about being smeared in x, they mean that according to their strict approach, these sorts of restrictions cannot be applied to [tex]\phi(x,t)[/tex] but only to

[tex]\phi(f)=\int f(x)\phi(x)d^4x[/tex]

where f is an appropriate test function.

In other words, i don't really understand what they are saying. But its nice to know someone else is bothered by it besides me.
 
  • #10
Some people are bothered by "functions" that approach delta functions in some limit. Personally I always fall back to some box normalization picture or regularization picture when I'm bothered by this. It's always the final answer that has to make sense physically, not the individual steps =)

Thing is, these singularities are where the fun hides in QM and QFT. Ever wonder about [tex]\operatorname{tr}\,(XP - PX) \neq 0[/tex]? These contact terms come from short-distance behaviour and our attempts to apply finite-dimensonal rules to infinite dimensional systems. For instance, for an infinite dimensional matrix you have to be careful how to define [tex]\det A[/tex], and most of the time it'll be the case that [tex]\det A \det B \neq \det AB[/tex]. This gives rise to various anomalies. Finally there is normal ordering which is even more fun!
 
  • #11
For free fields, given basic creation and destruction operators, you can find the (anti)commutators for arbitrary coordinates, in each field involved. Weinberg's treatment is based on creation and destruction operators( see p173 and on in Vol 1 of his Field Theory treatise, and then go to p201 and following.) Note, also, that the Jacob and Wick helicity formalism preceded Weinberg's treatment.

So, really, Weinberg uses canonical commutation rules, but in a somewhat disguised fashion. My sense is that the key for Weinberg is the Cluster Decomposition Principle.

One of the major players in what might be called practical formal field theory is Gunner Kallen. He was writing in the 1960s about smeared out fields, distributions,commutation rules, propagators, vertex functions and the like. If you want to get a better handle on such matters, find his work, maybe on Google -- my source is the lectures from the 1960 Les Houches summer school in a volume called Dispersion Relations and Elementary Particles, edited by De Witt and Omnes. Yes, it is very old stuff, but still highly relevant and insightful.

And remember, physicists are often sloppy about mathematics -- cf. Goldberger and Watson's Collision Theory. They go into infinite detail about the formal difficulties of the Lippman Schwinger eq., the Heitler Integral Eq, and all of formal scattering theory, which directly connects with field theory. Good stuff to know if you want to understand QM dynamics, whether relativistic or non-relativistic.
Regards,
Reilly
 

1. What is an equal-time commutator?

An equal-time commutator is a mathematical operation that measures the degree of non-commutativity between two operators at the same time. It is represented by the symbol [A,B] and is defined as the difference between the product of A and B and the product of B and A.

2. Why are equal-time commutators important in science?

Equal-time commutators are important in science because they are used to describe the behavior of physical systems, particularly in quantum mechanics. They help us understand the relationship between different physical quantities and how they change over time.

3. How are equal-time commutators calculated?

Equal-time commutators are calculated using the commutator formula [A,B] = AB - BA. This involves multiplying the two operators in both orders and taking the difference between the two products.

4. What is the significance of a zero equal-time commutator?

A zero equal-time commutator indicates that the two operators commute, meaning their order does not affect the final result. This has important implications in quantum mechanics, where it means that the two physical quantities can be measured simultaneously with no interference.

5. Can the equal-time commutator of two operators be negative?

Yes, the equal-time commutator can be negative, positive, or zero. A negative value indicates that the two operators do not commute and their order does affect the final result. This is common in quantum mechanics, where the uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical quantities cannot be measured simultaneously with complete precision.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
722
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
13
Views
949
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
986
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
519
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
41
Views
4K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
951
Back
Top