I have seen this question asked before, but have not really found a satisfying answer, or maybe more exactly, I have not seen an answer that I can really understand.

I refer to section 5 of his book, p 39. He imposes the condition $\langle0| \varphi(0)|0 \rangle =0 $ as one of the conditions needed for the LSZ formula to be valid. His motivation is that

"This is because we would like $a^\dagger_1(\pm\infty)$, when acting on $|0 \rangle$, to create a single-particle state. We do not want $a^\dagger_1(\pm\infty)$ to create a linear combination of a single particle state and the ground state. But this is precisely what will happen if $\langle 0| \varphi(0)|0 \rangle$ is not zero."

I understand everything, expect the last sentence. Why would $a^\dagger_1(\pm\infty)|0 \rangle$ be such a linear combination if $\langle 0| \varphi(0)|0 \rangle$ is not zero. I just can't work this out.


First, it's important to know what kind of states there are. I'll call them ground state $|0\rangle$, one-particle state $|k\rangle$ and multi-particle state $|n,k\rangle$. Here, $k$ specifies the momentum of a particle and $n$ is a collection of other quantum numbers that may arise (e.g. relative momentum between some other momenta, ...).

We want $a^\dagger|0\rangle$ to create a one-particle state. In Eq. (3.19), Srednicki defines $$ \varphi(x) = \int \widetilde{\text{d}k} \big[ a(k)\, \text{e}^{\text{i} kx} + a^\dagger(k)\, \text{e}^{-\text{i} kx} \big].\tag{1}\label{a} $$

Assume, that $a^\dagger$ creates both a one-particle state, as well as the ground state, like this $$ a^\dagger |0\rangle = c_1 |k\rangle + c_2 |0\rangle, $$ with some complex numbers $c_{1,2}$. Now we calculate the vacuum expectation value of $\varphi$ (and only consider the $a^\dagger$-part for notational simplicity): \begin{align*} \lim\limits_{x\to 0}\langle 0|\varphi(x)|0\rangle &= \lim\limits_{x\to 0}\int \widetilde{\text{d}k} \langle 0| a^\dagger(k)\, \text{e}^{-\text{i} kx} |0\rangle \\ &= \int \widetilde{\text{d}k} \langle 0| a^\dagger(k) |0\rangle \,\text{e}^{0} \\ &= \int \widetilde{\text{d}k} \langle 0| \big[ c_1 |k\rangle + c_2 |0\rangle \big]\\ &\propto c_1 \underbrace{\langle 0|k\rangle}_{0,\text{ orthogonal!}} + c_2 \underbrace{\langle 0|0\rangle}_{1}\\ &= c_2 \neq 0 \end{align*} This means, if we let $a^\dagger$ create both a one-particle state and the ground state, then $\langle 0|\varphi(0)|0\rangle$ does not vanish. But if we define $\langle 0|\varphi(0)|0\rangle\equiv 0$, we must set $c_2=0$, which means that $a^\dagger$ truly only creates a one-particle state in Eq. \eqref{a}.

Ad comment: (1) If we want to be precise and include the $a$ term, we should also not perform the limit so quickly. Inside the integration, there's a $\text{e}^{\text ikx}$ and a $\text{e}^{-\text ikx}$. They are linearly independent, so each should vanish. (Also note that while $x\to 0$, $k\to \infty$, so that's ill-defined within the exponential)

(2) $a$ being evaluated at $t=\pm\infty$ helps us make it non-interacting. If this doesn't answer your question, I am sorry I did not understand it. If so, please restate it.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. This is probably it indeed, but I still have a few questions. (1) if you add the "a" part then acting on <0| one will get a c_2* <0|0> contribution. So the requirement is that c_2* + c_2 =0, i.e. c_2 is a purely imaginary number? (2) The "a" are at infinite past or future, but phi is not, or is that why we use the energy momentum operator? $\endgroup$ – Oбжорoв Nov 8 '17 at 8:52
  • $\begingroup$ I've edited my answer, does this help? $\endgroup$ – Stephan Nov 8 '17 at 9:17
  • $\begingroup$ (1) understood - agreed. (2) Not sure that is my question. You expand phi(0) in terms of a and a^dagger, which are time-dependent and also taken at (t=0) then? So how do you relate this expansion to the "a"s at infinity? $\endgroup$ – Oбжорoв Nov 8 '17 at 9:25
  • $\begingroup$ My first guess is that since $\langle 0|\phi(x)|0\rangle$ is invariant under Poincaré transformations, it does not matter if we set $t=0$, $t=t_0$ or $t=\pm\infty$ for the VEV. But I'm not 100% certain on that one.. $\endgroup$ – Stephan Nov 9 '17 at 1:46

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.