2
$\begingroup$

it's literally days I'm struggling with apparently simple problems concerning $\phi^4$ theory. I think the main issues are 2, that appear to me related one to another

  1. Is this type of field actually a field?

I know it may seem as a silly question, but for how I learned QFT a field state is a carrier space of an irreducible unitary realization of the Poincaré group: this ultimately means that a field can be only separated in modes on the mass-shell and the fact that every interacting field is not on the mass-shell anymore, despite for $t=\pm\infty$, really confuses me.

  1. Why in the interaction term of the hamiltonian operator do we encounter the free field?

In fact $\hat{H}=\hat{H}_0+\delta\hat{H}$ where the hamiltonian density change is $\delta\hat{\mathscr{H}}=\lambda\phi^4/4!$ and the field is the free one! I really can't go over this, because doing all the derivation from the Heisenberg picture to the interaction one doesn't seem that way at all; in fact, just reporting the main results, we should have $$ \hat{\phi}_{\text{H}}(t,\boldsymbol{r}) = \mathcal{U}^\dagger(t,\tilde{t}) \hat{\phi}_{\text{I}}(t,\boldsymbol{r}) \mathcal{U}(t,\tilde{t}) \\ \mathcal{U}(t,\tilde{t}) = T\left( \exp\left( -\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{\tilde{t}}^t \text{d}{\underline{t}}\, e^{\frac{i}{\hbar}\hat{H}_0(\underline{t}-\tilde{t})} \delta\hat{H}(\underline{t}) e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}\hat{H}_0(\underline{t}-\tilde{t})} \right)\right) $$ where $\tilde{t}$ is defined such that $\hat{\phi}_{\text{H}}(\tilde{t},\boldsymbol{r})=\hat{\phi}_{\text{I}}(\tilde{t},\boldsymbol{r})$. In other words how is possible that the fourth power of the field carried by the term $$ e^{\frac{i}{\hbar}\hat{H}_0(\underline{t}-\tilde{t})} \delta\hat{H}(\underline{t}) e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}\hat{H}_0(\underline{t}-\tilde{t})} $$ is the fourth power of the free field? Thank you in advance.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 1. I don't understand what "a field state is a carrier space of an irreducible unitary realization of the Poincaré group" is supposed to mean. Quantum fields are operators, they act on a space of states that also carries a unitary representations of the Poincaré group (the irreducible subrepresentations are the one-particle spaces). What is "a field state", and how is the state the "carrier space" for a representation? $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    Commented Feb 24, 2021 at 16:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 2. I don't fully understand what you're getting at in the second part either, but Haag's theorem is probably relevant to it, if you are looking for rigor in the interaction picture, see e.g. the references in physics.stackexchange.com/a/531690/50583 $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    Commented Feb 24, 2021 at 16:30
  • $\begingroup$ @ACuriousMind "the irreducible subrepresentations are the one-particle spaces" oh yes thanks for precising it :) I meant that field state is part of a carrier space $\mathfrak{V}$, I missed "part of". I always imagined states of the field as $|\boldsymbol{v}\rangle\in\mathfrak{V}$ such that ${\mathbb{X}}{^\alpha_\beta}\langle\boldsymbol{x},\beta|\boldsymbol{v}\rangle\doteq\phi^\alpha(\boldsymbol{x})$ for every field, where $\mathbb{X}=\mathbb{I}$ for Klein-Gordon complex field and is $\gamma^0$ for Dirac field (and is $(\eta_{\alpha\beta})$ for the electromagnetic field, maybe). $\endgroup$
    – Rob Tan
    Commented Feb 24, 2021 at 19:20
  • $\begingroup$ @ACuriousMind Thanks for the link, I'm convinced I already saw this question, even though I didn't remember it. Through this forum I heard about Haag's theorem: I understood that in a way it says that interaction picture is not good for picturing interactions ahah In fact I had no problems in using Heisenberg one, but just that made my question! I don't get why on Earth we pass on $\hat{\phi}_{\text{I}}$ inside $\delta\hat{H}(t)$ and we don't use $\hat{\phi}_{\text{H}}$. $\endgroup$
    – Rob Tan
    Commented Feb 24, 2021 at 19:27

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

Why in the interaction term of the hamiltonian operator do we encounter the free field?

Because we work in the Interaction picture. You stated this in your question, so I think you already know about the Interaction picture.

The interaction picture evolves the operators with the "free" hamiltonian $H_0$. Whether the operators are "free" or not just refers to their time dependence. For example, you seem to call the free field, the operator in the interaction picture: $$ \hat \phi_I(x,t) = e^{iH_0t}\hat\phi(x)e^{-iH_0t}\;. $$

In the interaction picture, the time dependence of the phi-fourth perturbation is: $$ \delta H_I(t) = e^{iH_0 t}\delta He^{-iH_0 t} $$ $$ =e^{iH_0 t}\frac{\lambda}{4!}\int d^3x \hat\phi(x)\hat\phi(x)\hat\phi(x)\hat\phi(x) e^{-iH_0 t} $$ $$ =\frac{\lambda}{4!}\int d^3x e^{iH_0 t}\hat\phi(x)\hat\phi(x)\hat\phi(x)\hat\phi(x)e^{-iH_0 t} $$ $$ =\frac{\lambda}{4!}\int d^3x e^{iH_0 t}\hat\phi(x)e^{-iH_0 t}e^{iH_0 t}\hat\phi(x)e^{-iH_0 t}e^{iH_0 t}\hat\phi(x)e^{-iH_0 t}e^{iH_0 t}\hat\phi(x)e^{-iH_0 t} $$ $$ =\frac{\lambda}{4!}\int d^3x \hat\phi_I(x,t)\hat\phi_I(x,t)\hat\phi_I(x,t)\hat\phi_I(x,t) $$

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ The problem is, if you consider the perturbation to start at $\tilde{t}=0$, you must evolve $\delta\hat{H}(\underline{t})$ and not $\delta\hat{H}(0)$ with the unperturbed hamiltonian: what I mean is that in your derivation, the operators $\hat{\phi}(x)$ have actually $t$ index and so they are $\hat{\phi}(t,x)$. This operator is that of the field and not that of the free field. If we had instead $\delta\hat{H}(0)$ I would agree with you: in that case you evolved in the Heisenberg picture, operators that never saw the perturbation coming and that are evolving with the unperturbed hamiltonian. $\endgroup$
    – Rob Tan
    Commented May 20, 2022 at 9:25
  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand what you are saying in your comment. $\endgroup$
    – hft
    Commented May 20, 2022 at 14:00
  • $\begingroup$ I mean, if you intend to say $\delta H\equiv\delta\hat{H}(0)$ and $\hat{\phi}(x)\equiv\hat{\phi}(0,x)$ and you consider the perturbation to start at $t=0$, I agree with you: otherwise I don't understand why the considered field operator is free $\endgroup$
    – Rob Tan
    Commented May 20, 2022 at 18:27
  • $\begingroup$ What is special about the time $t=0$? There is no explicit time dependence in any of the Hamiltonians. $\endgroup$
    – hft
    Commented May 20, 2022 at 20:04
  • $\begingroup$ I mean $\delta H$ depends on $\phi$, that depends on $t$ $\endgroup$
    – Rob Tan
    Commented May 23, 2022 at 12:21
0
$\begingroup$

Sometimes a complicated interacting system can be described with so called normal modes - collective motions that are approximately linearly independent. The real evolution includes interaction terms, naturally. Unfortunately, we often choose bad initial approximations to begin the perturbation theory. I wrote a methodological paper about it. Maybe it will help.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ thanks for the suggestion and the link to your paper: I think there is too much information to process for me at the moment, I'm sorry, in fact I'm not able to link to my questions. In every case, thanks :) $\endgroup$
    – Rob Tan
    Commented Feb 24, 2021 at 19:32

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.