4
$\begingroup$

I read there are two definitions about $S$-operator:

The first one (e.g (8.49) in Greiner's Field Quantization) is: $$S_{fi}\equiv \langle \Psi_p^{-}| \Psi_k^{+}\rangle$$ where $|\Psi_p^{-}\rangle$ is a state in Heisenberg picture which is $| p \rangle$ at $t=+\infty$ when you calculate the $|\Psi_p^{-}\rangle$ in Schrodinger picture , called out state. $| \Psi_k^{+}\rangle$ is a state in Heisenberg picture which is $| k \rangle$ at $t=-\infty$, called in state.

So$$S_{fi}\equiv \langle \Psi_p^{-}| \Psi_k^{+}\rangle= \langle p|(\Omega_-)^\dagger\Omega_+|k \rangle$$

In this case the S-operator $\hat S=(\Omega_-)^\dagger\Omega_+$, where Møller operator $$\Omega_+ = \lim_{t\rightarrow -\infty} U^\dagger (t) U_0(t)$$ $$\Omega_- = \lim_{t\rightarrow +\infty} U^\dagger (t) U_0(t)$$ So $$S=U_I(\infty,-\infty)$$

Another definition (e.g (9.14) (9.17) (9.99) in Greiner's Field Quantization) is : $$S_{fi}\equiv \langle \Psi_p^{-}| \Psi_k^{+}\rangle\equiv\langle \Psi_p^{-}| \hat S ^\prime |\Psi_k^{-}\rangle=\langle \Psi_p^{+}| \hat S ^\prime |\Psi_k^{+}\rangle$$ where S-operator $\hat S ^\prime |\Psi_p^{-}\rangle =|\Psi_p^{+}\rangle$ that is $\hat S^\prime = \Omega_+(\Omega_-)^\dagger$.

It seems that these two definitions are differnt, but many textbook can derive the same dyson formula for these two S-operators. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-matrix#The_S-matrix

How to prove: $$\Omega_+(\Omega_-)^\dagger= e^{i \alpha}(\Omega_-)^\dagger\Omega_+$$

related to this question: There are two definitions of S operator (or S matrix) in quantum field theory. Are they equivalent?

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

I'll offer a derivation, although I may gloss over possible subleties with different hilbert spaces. In short, the two definitions yield DIFFERENT Operators, that are only unitary equivalent:

We defined the s-matrix elements as \begin{align} S_{pk} = \langle \Psi_p^-| \Psi_k^+ \rangle \end{align}

You showed yourself how to derive the first identity about the S Operator, and it is also the one that is given by Weinberg (3.2.4): \begin{align} S_{pk} = \langle \Phi_p | S | \Phi_k \rangle \end{align} With $|\Phi_k>$ states of a free theory that are related to $\Psi_k$.

What you ask for now is wether the same operator $S$ gives the same Matrix-elements as well between the -in or -out states. This is not the case.

Instead, define an operator $\tilde{S}$ that maps -out states to -in states of the same label: \begin{align} \tilde{S} |\Psi^-_{k} \rangle = |\Psi^+_{k} \rangle \end{align}

Then \begin{align} \langle \Psi^-_{p} |\tilde{S}|\Psi^-_{k} \rangle = \langle \Psi^-_{p} |\Psi^+_{k} \rangle = S_{pk} \end{align}

So this operator $\tilde{S}$ is not the same operator, but it has the same matrix elements for another choice of a basis. It bugged me as well until I found out, because other authors (for example Peskin / Schroeder) or Schwartz) use this definition.

That the operators are different can be seen when writing them down as linear combinations of $|\Psi_x \rangle$ and $|\Phi_x \rangle$.

$\endgroup$
-2
$\begingroup$

I think this is a Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff (BCH) rule type of result. I will define the operators $$ \Omega_\pm~=~e^{i\beta_\pm}, $$ so that $$ (\Omega_-)^\dagger\Omega_+~=~e^{-i\beta_-}e^{i\beta_+} $$ $$ =~\left(1~-~i\beta_-~-~\frac{1}{2}\beta_-^2\right)\left(1~+~i\beta_+~-~\frac{1}{2}\beta_+^2\right)~+~O(\beta^3). $$ A similar expression is derived from $\Omega_+(\Omega_-)^\dagger$. We may then easily see that $$ (\Omega_-)^\dagger\Omega_+~=~\Omega_+(\Omega_-)^\dagger~+~[\beta_-,~\beta_+]. $$ By BCH allows us to write this as $$ (\Omega_-)^\dagger\Omega_+~=~e^{[\beta_-,~\beta_+]}\Omega_+(\Omega_-)^\dagger. $$ From there it is a matter of defining $\alpha~=~-i[\beta_-,~\beta_+]$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How do you know $[\beta_-,\beta_+]$ is a number? $\endgroup$
    – MannyC
    Feb 11, 2019 at 20:07
  • $\begingroup$ I doubt it is, furthermore I don't think BCH is applicable here because I don' think $\beta$ has to be small in any sense. $\endgroup$
    – Blazej
    Mar 24, 2021 at 21:31

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.