1
$\begingroup$

I'm having some difficulty with the finer points of expanding a field in terms of ladder operators. Note that this is not identical to the other related question I asked. From Peskin / Schroeder;

At any fixed time $t_0$ we can of course expand $\phi$ in terms of ladder operators $$\phi(\textbf{x},t_0)=\displaystyle\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2E_p}}(a_pe^{i\textbf{p.x}}+a_p^\dagger e^{-i\textbf{p.x}}).$$ Then to obtain $\phi(\textbf{x},t)$ for $t\neq t_0$ we just switch to the Heisenberg picture $$\phi(\textbf{x},t)=e^{iH(t-t_0)}\phi(\textbf{x},t_0)e^{-iH(t-t_0)}.$$

I think the notation is a little dodgy. Define $\phi^S(\textbf{x})=\phi(\textbf{x},t_0)$. Then $\phi^S(\textbf{x})$ is time independent and corresponds to the Schrodinger picture of $\phi(x)$. We can then of course define the conjugate momenta $\pi^S(\textbf{x})=\pi(\textbf{x},t_0)$ in the Schrodinger picture. Together these satisfy the (equal time) commutation relations. We can then introduce the creation and annihilation operators and diagonalise the Hamilmtonian.

$$\phi(\textbf{x},t_0)=\displaystyle\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2E_p}}(a_p(t_0)e^{i\textbf{p.x}}+a_p(t_0)^\dagger e^{-i\textbf{p.x}}).$$

My main issue is due to the "time dependence" of $a_p$ and $a^\dagger_p$. These operators are defined on the time slice $t=t_0$. In particular $a_p=a_p(t_0)$ and the vacuum state is defined to be the state annihilated by $a_p$. But $a_p$ is really only defined for $t=t_0$. So we could pick a difference time slice $t=t_1$ and expand the field in terms of new ladder operators

$$\phi(\textbf{x},t_1)=\displaystyle\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2E_p}}(a_p(t_1)e^{i\textbf{p.x}}+a_p(t_1)^\dagger e^{-i\textbf{p.x}}).$$

Since the vacuum state must also be annihilated by the these annihilation operators does this imply the field is completely time independent?

Edit: Also Peskin / Schroeder make no mention of time slices, they merely say they are working in the Schrodinger picture. Is the way I've defined things above essentially what's going on - i.e. theyve defined their creation / annihilation operators at some reference time ($t=0$ by the looks of it) and just left this completely implicit? So their creation operators would create a particle with momentum $\textbf{p}$ at time $t=0$ whereas mine defined on the time-slice $t=t_0$ would create a particle with momentum $\textbf{p}$ at time $t=t_0$?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ No, creation and annihilation operators are the Fourier coefficients of the expansion and therefore only depend on the Fourier variables $\textbf{k},\omega$. They do not depend on the time variable, whose dependence is only through the exponential in the integral. $\endgroup$ – gented Jul 1 '15 at 0:01
1
$\begingroup$

No.

If $$a_p(t_0)\left | 0\right>=0$$ then $$a_p(t)\left|0\right>=e^{iH(t-t_0)}a_p(t_0)e^{-iH(t-t_0)}\left|0\right>=0$$ since we usually think of the vacuum as a energy eigenstate with energy zero (even if it's not zero, the above equation is still true).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ah I thought this might be the case. Please see my edit for a new question. $\endgroup$ – Okazaki Jun 30 '15 at 0:40
  • $\begingroup$ @ryanp16 Yes, you are right. $a_p(t_0)$ creates a particle at $t_0$. And $t_0$ is usually chose to be 0. $\endgroup$ – Nahc Jun 30 '15 at 1:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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