0
$\begingroup$

Consider the free scalar theory with the zeroed Hamiltonian (i.e. such that the vacuum energy is zero). What is the energy of a multi-particle state $\phi^n|\Omega\rangle$ or (perhaps the more physically meaningful normal-ordered) $:\phi^n:|\Omega\rangle$? (where $\phi$ is appropriated smeared such that it is localized over some small compact region.)

I reckon that the Hamiltonian is simply proportional to the number operator, so the energy would just scale linearly with $n$.

More generally, for any relativistic QFT, is it universally true that the energy, excited by some compactly supported operator $O$ applied $n$ times, of $O^n|\Omega\rangle$ grows linearly with $n$ at the leading order?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ "What is the energy of a multi-particle state $\phi^n|\Omega\rangle$..." (Emphasis added.) Assuming the usual meaning for $\phi$, your state isn't an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, so there is no "the energy" for that state. If you are asking for the expectation value of the energy, then you can calculate it like: $\frac{\langle\Omega|{\phi^\dagger}^n\hat H\phi^n|\Omega\rangle}{\langle\Omega|{\phi^\dagger}^n\phi^n|\Omega\rangle}$ $\endgroup$
    – hft
    Commented Mar 23, 2023 at 23:59
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I mean the expectation value. $\endgroup$
    – Shadumu
    Commented Mar 24, 2023 at 3:33

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

This is only necessarily true for non-interacting quantum field theories. A really simple example is the second-quantized description of atoms in an optical lattice. If the atoms don't interact, then we just have $H=\sum_i \delta_i n_i$, where $n_i$ is the number operator for site $i$. But if they do, then you can get extra terms like $c\sum_i n_i^2$, which describes attractive it repulsive interactions depending on the sign of $c$. The eigenstates are the same, but the spectrum is no longer linear in $n$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ What are your $n_i$'s? So your point is that the energy could grow superlinearly or sublinearly depending on the details of the interactions, right? $\endgroup$
    – Shadumu
    Commented Mar 23, 2023 at 6:04
  • $\begingroup$ Yup! I edited the answer to define $n_i$ $\endgroup$
    – user34722
    Commented Mar 23, 2023 at 20:19

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.