4
$\begingroup$

In relativistic QFT one usually uses four-momentum vector $P^\mu$ which combines energy of a system with its momentum. I'm confused about the physical interpretation of the individual components of $P^\mu$.

Let's assume that the signature of the metric is $(1,-1,-1,-1)$. The zeroth component $P^0=P_0$ has, clearly, the interpretation of the energy of the system. But what is the spatial momentum of the system in the direction of $x$ axis? Is it $P^1$ or $P_1$?

I think that most people consider $P^1$ as the $x$ component of the spatial momentum. However, than it seems that the space-time translations are implemented differently in QM and QFT. In QM the state $\psi$ of the system shifted in time by $t$ and in space by $(x,y,z)$ is given by

$$ \exp\left(-\frac{i}{\hbar}~ t\,P^0 -\frac{i}{\hbar} ~(x P_x+y P_y + z P_z)\right) \psi,$$

where $P^0\equiv H$ is the hamiltonian of the system and $P_x$, $P_y$, $P_z$ are the physical components of the spatial momentum. On the other hand in QFT the state $\psi$ of the system shifted in space-time by four-vector $x=(t,x,y,z)$ is given by

$$ \exp\left(-\frac{i}{\hbar} P\cdot x\right) \psi= \exp\left(-\frac{i}{\hbar}~ t\,P^0 +\frac{i}{\hbar} ~(x P^1+y P^2 + z P^3)\right) \psi,$$

which is equivalent to the previous formula if $P_1$ is the spatial momentum of the system in the direction of $x$ axis ($P_1 = P_x$ not $P^1=P_x$).

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ What has this to do with QFT, or quantum mechanics, at all? You seem to be simply asking whether it's the spatial part of $p^\mu$ or of $p_\mu$ that corresponds to the usual non-relativistic spatial momentum, which is a pure question about special relativity. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Aug 2 '16 at 10:56
2
$\begingroup$

In general in special relativity you have $P^{\mu}=(E,\vec p)^{\mu}$ and $P_{\mu}=(E,-\vec p)$ if $+---$ signature of metric is chosen or $P_{\mu}=(-E,\vec p)_{\mu}$ otherwise. I will stick to the first choice in this post. In nonrelativistic $QM$ you have operators $H=i \partial _t$ and $\vec p= -i \vec \nabla$. Now recall (or check) that derivative operator naturally transforms as a covector, i.e. as if it had a lower index. So we have $\partial_{\mu}=(\partial_t, \vec \nabla)_{\mu}$ and $\partial ^{\mu} = (\partial_t, - \vec \nabla)^{\mu}$. Therefore you can make an identification $P^{\mu}=i \partial ^{\mu}$. Now if you act on a wavefunction you get $$ e^{-iP^{\mu}a_{\mu}} \psi (t ,\vec x) = e^{a^0 \partial_t + \vec a \cdot \vec \nabla} \psi (t, \vec x) = \psi (t+a^0, \vec x + \vec a). $$ Therefore I think this notation is quite consistent. Note also that quite generally (also in, say, electromagnetism and optics) spatial dependece of a plane-wave propagating in the $z$-direction is $e^{-i \omega t + i k z}$. There must be relative sign difference between these two terms in the exponent because only then surfaces of constant phase travel in the positive (rather than negative) $z$ direction.

Now some confusion may arise due to the fact that spatial coordinates play rather different roles in QM and QFT. In QM there is $\vec x$ operator and wave functions can be expanded in its eigenbasis with coefficients of expansion being wavefunctions depending on $\vec x$. On the other hand $t$ is just a parameter labeling ket states at different times. In QFT there is no $\vec x$ operator as well as no $t$ operator.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Note that the function $\psi(\vec{x})$ shifted by $\vec{a}$ should be $\psi(\vec{x}-\vec{a})$, not $\psi(\vec{x}+\vec{a})$. This is why standard textbook definition of translation operator in QM is $U(\vec{a}) = \exp( - i/\hbar~ \vec{a}\cdot\vec{P})$. $\endgroup$ – user72829 Aug 2 '16 at 15:00
  • $\begingroup$ @user72829 You are right. But then translation in time would be $e^{itH}$ rather than $e^{-itH}$. In QFT you don't have evolution in time at all, because state vector encodes whole history of the system. Instead you can make a translation in this history, which is implemented by unitary operator $e^{iP \cdot a}$. Confront Weinberg's QFT textbook, volume 1, chapter 3, section 1. $\endgroup$ – Blazej Aug 2 '16 at 16:54

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.