Wick's Theorem for free fields only

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the applicability of Wick's Theorem specifically to free fields within the context of quantum field theory. Participants explore the theoretical foundations and implications of the theorem, particularly in relation to Gaussian integrals and operator products.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the necessity of the free field assumption for Wick's Theorem, seeking clarification on which aspects of the argument rely on this assumption.
  • Another participant asserts that Wick's Theorem is fundamentally linked to Gaussian integrals, which correspond to free fields in quantum field theory.
  • A different participant emphasizes that the theorem relates time-ordered operator products to normal-ordered operator products and contractions, expressing confusion about the requirement for free fields.
  • It is noted that a mode decomposition of a field into annihilation and creation operators is essential for defining normal ordering, which is only applicable to free fields, thus justifying the use of the interaction picture.
  • Further, a participant mentions that Wick's Theorem is valid under specific conditions regarding the initial state represented by a statistical operator, linking it to the vacuum state in quantum field theory.
  • References to literature are provided for deeper understanding, including a suggestion for a source on the Schwinger-Keldysh formalism.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of the free field assumption for Wick's Theorem, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of specific definitions and conditions under which Wick's Theorem holds, such as the requirement for a statistical operator form and the implications of the vacuum state, which may not be universally applicable.

epsilon-
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I'm not quite following why Wick's Theorem only applies to free fields. What part of the argument depends on a free field assumption?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Wick's theorem is about Gaussian integrals. In quantum field theory, free fields correspond to Gaussian integrals.

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys7240/phys7240_fa14/notes/Week8.pdf
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
It can be used for that application, but the actual statement of the theorem just relates time-ordered operator products to normal-ordered operator products and contractions. I'm not seeing why the operators in question have to be free-field.
 
You cannot introduce even a definition of normal ordering without a mode decomposition of a field in terms of annihilation and creation operators with respect to some single-particle basis. Such a decomposition only exists for free fields and that's why one uses the interaction picture.

In addition, it's important to note that Wick's theorem is valid if and only if the initial state is given by a statistical operator of the form ##\hat{\rho}=\exp(-\hat{A})##, where ##\hat{A}## is an appropriate single-particle operator. The special case of vacuum QFT, i.e., when ##\hat{\rho}=|\Omega \rangle \langle \Omega |## can be taken as the zero-temperature limit and zero-chemical potential(s) limit of the grand-canonical ensemble, ##\hat{\rho}=\exp(-\beta \hat{H})/Z## with ##Z=\mathrm{Tr} \exp(-\beta{\hat{H}})##, ##\beta=1/(k_B T)##.

For a very good introduction on these issues, see

Danielewicz, P.: Quantum Theory of Nonequilibrium Processes II. Application to Nuclear Collisions, Ann. Phys. 152, 305–326, 1984
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(84)90093-9
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you, that puts me on the trail.
 
Yes, this is the best source to start learning about the Schwinger-Keldysh real-time formalism (NB: If Keldysh is expected to be in the audience listening to your talk, better call it the "Keldysh real-time formalism" :-)).
 

Similar threads

Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K