4
$\begingroup$

In my course we calculated the Klein-Gordon field:

$$ \phi(x)= \int \frac{d^3k}{(2 \pi)^3}\frac{1}{2k_0} ~ \left[a(\vec{k})e^{-ik.x}+b^*(\vec{k})e^{i kx}\right]$$

We said that the part $ a(\vec{k})e^{-ikx} $ correspond to the positive energies solutions, and the part $b^*(\vec{k})e^{i kx}$ to the negative ones. (We are not doing quantum mechanics here, $a(\vec{k})$ and $b^*(\vec{k})$ are numbers).

Why do we say this?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is just a name. There is nothing more to it. $\endgroup$ Mar 26, 2017 at 15:09

3 Answers 3

9
$\begingroup$

You say you're doing classical field theory, but the terminology comes from QM: these terms are only positive and negative energy if you interpret the field $\phi$ as a wavefunction, as people did when they first formulated the equations. Example: let's use $(+---)$ signature, and let

$$\phi = e^{-ikx} = e^{-iEt + \mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{x}}\ .$$

Since this is supposed to be a wavefunction, it should satisfy the Schrödinger equation $H\phi = i \partial \phi / \partial t$, so

$$H\phi = i \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} = i (-iE \phi) = E\phi\ .$$

This means that $\phi$ is an eigenfunction of $H$ with eigenvalue $E$, i.e., it has positive energy (assuming $E>0$). If you reverse the sign in the exponent, you get $H\phi = -E\phi$, that is, a negative energy wavefunction.

This is precisely the reason why since the 1930's we don't interpret $\phi$ as a wavefunction, but rather as a quantum field, which is a different type of thing. It is an operator-valued function, $a$ and $b$ are creation/annihilation operators. It can be shown that the states created by $\phi$ in this formalism all have positive energy. Therefore, the positive/negative energy thing is just a historical leftover (which I hope will die eventually), and you shouldn't pay a lot of attention to it.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The plane waves in your Klein-Gordon field have been rearranged so as to write the integrals in a nicer way.

The solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation are originally written $\phi \sim e^{-ik_\mu x^\mu}$ (using $\hbar =1$) where the 4-momentum $k = (E/c, {\bf k})$ must satisfy $k^\mu k_\mu = m_0^2 c^2$, and so $E_\pm({\bf k}) = \pm \sqrt{{\bf k}^2c^2 + m_0^2 c^4} $.

With a metric signature (+,-,-,-), so that $k_\mu x^\mu = Et-{\bf k}\cdot {\bf x}$, this means that for given ${\bf k}$ the positive energy plane wave reads $e^{-i (E_+t - {\bf k}\cdot {\bf x})}$, while the negative energy one is $e^{-i (E_-t - {\bf k}\cdot {\bf x})} = e^{i (E_+t + {\bf k}\cdot {\bf x})}$.

This is what you have under the integral in the general Klein-Gordon field, with $E({\bf k}) = E_+({\bf k})$ and one slight rearrangement: Since in fact $E({\bf k}) = E({\bf k}^2)$, in the negative energy terms one may flip the integration variable from ${\bf k}$ to $-{\bf k}$ so that the corresponding plane wave reads now $e^{i (Et - {\bf k}\cdot {\bf x})} = e^{i k\cdot x}$, in perfect symmetry to the positive energy plane waves $e^{-i (Et - {\bf k}\cdot {\bf x})} = e^{-ik\cdot x}$.

Caution: The term "negative energy" does not mean that the corresponding plane waves actually carry negative energy. When one calculates the energy-momentum tensor and corresponding energy-momentum density of the Klein-Gordon field, it turns out that both waves carry the same energy $|E({\bf k})|>0$. On the other hand, the conserved charge mentioned in the other answer and its associated current do have opposite signs for positive and negative energy waves, and in a modern interpretation are identified as corresponding to opposite electric charge. That is, a complex Klein-Gordon field describes charged spin-0 particles and their antiparticles, while a real Klein-Gordon field describes neutral spin-zero particles that are their own anti-particles.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand why $ e^{-i(Et-k.x)} $ is a positive energy wave ? I don't get your explanation around it, in the paragraph "With a metric signature..." $\endgroup$
    – StarBucK
    Mar 26, 2017 at 10:13
  • $\begingroup$ Is it better now? $\endgroup$
    – udrv
    Mar 26, 2017 at 15:08
0
$\begingroup$

Set $c=\hbar=1$. We've superposed two simple special cases. One case for mass $m$ is $e^{-ik\cdot x}=e^{-i\omega_{\mathbf{k}}t+i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{x}}$ with $\omega_\mathbf{k}=\sqrt{\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{k}+m^2}$, which famously has momentum $\mathbf{k}$ (the momentum operator is $-i\boldsymbol{\nabla}$ and energy $\omega_\mathbf{k}>0$ (the energy operator is $i\partial_t$). Note in particular that $k_0=\omega_\mathbf{k}$. Similarly, $e^{ik\cdot x}$ is implied by this argument to have energy $-\omega_\mathbf{k}<0$. So $a$ is a positive-energy solution's coefficient, while $b^\ast$ is a negative-energy solution's coefficient.

You may also like to show that the famous conserved charge $i\int d^3\mathbf{x}\left( \phi^\ast\partial^0\phi-\phi\partial^0\phi^\ast\right)$ is proportional to energy (not just for both special cases; see what $i\partial_t$ does), and that for general $\phi$ this charge is proportional to $\int\frac{d^3\mathbf{k}}{\left( 2\pi\right)^3 2k_0} k_0\left( \left| a\right|^2- \left| b\right|^2\right)$. Note the $b$ sector is subtracted because it scores negative energy.

Incidentally, this charge (called the Klein-Gordon norm), which changes sign under $\phi\to\phi^\ast$, a transformation under which Klein-Gordon solutions are closed while Schrödinger ones aren't, is the relativistic equivalent of the quantum-mechanics integral $\int \rho d^3\mathbf{x}$. This shows the negative-energy solutions also prevent a simple probability interpretation of quantum field theory. Instead $\phi$ is a field for all particles and antiparticles of the required species, and the $b$-sector subtracts from the particle number, i.e. corresponds to antimatter.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Why do you talk about the momentum operator ? Indeed I don't have any operators here I only work with special relativity in this model, the $a$ and $b$ coefficient are scalars not matrices. I'm not sure to get the point. $\endgroup$
    – StarBucK
    Mar 26, 2017 at 10:14
  • $\begingroup$ @user3183950 The argument doesn't assume $a,\,b$ are matrices or operators. You can compute the momentum and energy without quantum operators by consulting plane-wave conventions. However, there are several of these, one of which is standard in quantum theory and is used in deriving the KG equation from $E^2=p^2+m^2$. A classical derivation starts from a Lagrangian motivated by the harmonic oscillator, but it's then unclear how we define the energy unless we consider the plane wave solutions, which are 4-momentum eigenfunctions. $\endgroup$
    – J.G.
    Mar 26, 2017 at 11:29

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.