-2
$\begingroup$

In the Quantum Field Theory(QFT), we work in the distributional sense, that the normalization of vacuum is \begin{equation}\langle0|0\rangle=2E(\vec{0})(2\pi)^3\delta(\vec{0})\end{equation} This fact is solved by renormalisation techniques in situations it is suitable. However, if we forget about the renormalisation and think about the problem not as if it was a problem with infinity, but as a distributional problem, with the delta distribution definition $$\delta(0)f(x)=\delta_0(f(x))=f(0)$$ how would we need to rewrite the first equation to satisfy this definition and what would be the meaning of the applied function?

Note: my "non-standard" writing $\delta(0)f(x)=\delta_0(f(x))$ has nothing to do with the convention used in the first equation and the energy function product with the Dirac delta. It is completely different convention and that is why I am asking how to rewrite the above. However, the energy function above should be a constant, an energy of vacuum, not a function, anyway.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ No, they are not. $\endgroup$ – user74200 Feb 11 '17 at 13:31
  • $\begingroup$ Hamiltonian is a three dimensional object and the normalisation is 4D. $\langle0|0\rangle=\langle p=0|p=0\rangle$ with $p=(p_0,p_1,p_2,p_3)$. Actually, even $\langle p|p\rangle=E(\vec{p})/E(\vec{0})\langle0|0\rangle=2E(\vec{p})(2\pi)^3\delta(\vec{0})$ $\endgroup$ – user74200 Feb 11 '17 at 13:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't understand why questions about QFT are downvoted by so many people. $\endgroup$ – Physics Guy Feb 11 '17 at 15:43
1
$\begingroup$

The vacuum is always normalized as $\langle 0|0\rangle=1$. You seem to be confusing this with the normalization of the one-particle state $|{\bf 0}\rangle$ which is an example of
$$ \langle {\bf p}|{\bf p}'\rangle= (2\pi)^2 2E({\bf p}) \delta^3({\bf p}-{\bf p}'). $$ where ${\bf p}$ is the three-momentum. The one-particle state $|{\bf p}={\bf 0}\rangle $ describes a particle at rest and this is not the same as the vacuum.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Nope, it is not three-momentum, it is four-momentum. $\langle x|x\rangle=1$, and since $p=\mathcal{F}x$, where $\mathcal{F}$ is a fourier transform, $\langle p|p\rangle=2E(p)(2\pi)^3\delta^3(0)$, if $p=0$, we get that for vacuum. The 2E(p) we get from the time component. Seriously. Don't try to correct the statement, it is not wrong, it is taken from a textbook. It is not wrong. $\endgroup$ – user74200 Feb 11 '17 at 19:24
  • $\begingroup$ Four-momentum zero is not a particle, it is nothing. It is a field with no mass and no momentum, an empty space, nothing. For a particle with no momentum the convention is $|k\rangle=|(m,\vec{0})\rangle$. This is single particle with no momentum. $\endgroup$ – user74200 Feb 11 '17 at 19:33

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.