Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
OfflineTheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
Quantum Field Theory question
    #8398242 - 05/13/08 08:08 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

hey, I was just wondering if anyone here whose actually taken graduate level qft or learned it can answer a question I have. Im reading a book which is basically a short (150 pages) intro to quantum field theory. Once Im done with this Im going to move onto a real book, at the same time Im reading "Lie groups, Lie algebras, and some of their applications" for some preparation. Anyways this book tells us that the zero point energy field is infinite, but in all meaningful calculations where we take the difference in energy it cancels out. This seems odd to me, so I figured we could flex the ol latex capabilities now.

So as an example this book shows us a Hamiltonian with an interacting hamiltonian. Basically the interacting hamiltonian is for QED so its the coupling between a radiation field and the electron-positron field.

So the energy eigenstate for the non-perturbed hamiltonian will be
Formula: 0

Next we get the first order energy with the perturbation factored in, which cancels out for reasons there are no reason to explain

Finally the second order energy eigenstate is
Formula: 1

where Formula: 2 is generally written as <0,H,I> but for some reason thats not working in the latex code.

So anyways this term equals Formula: 3
So therefore the book claims that now all is well because we have gotten rid of the infinite energy.

They have to preface this by saying that unlike in General Relativity the absolute value of the energy is not meaningful. Eh, I find this to be very strange. In fact the way that the field in general is arrived at seems dubious to me. Can someone explain why we can have the field as an infinite quantization of the harmonic oscillator?

Im sure all this is explained in a better book, but this is all I have at the moment. I think im gonna trade this in at the library for something better.

Ill explain this better if need be, Im a bit saucy at the moment

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledeimya
tofu and monocle
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch
Re: Quantum Field Theory question [Re: TheCow]
    #8400310 - 05/14/08 11:01 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Basically you have it there, any kind of dynamics is a transition from one state of the field to another and every transition probability is strictly proportional to energy differences. It is easy to see in the Heisenberg equations of motion for an operator Formula: 0 :
Formula: 1
and there you see that this zero-point energy gets substracted in the commutator. Therefore the dynamics is unaffected by it.

Also, concerning your question, it indeed is a bit dubious how we build a quantum field. The foundations of QFT are still part of a big, open problem in physics, for which you can get 1M$ from the Clay Institute, but it works very well so people are confident. This foundational problem arises in part because of the correspondence principle. That is to build a quantum field theory, you can do so using path integrals or canonical quantization. Most probably you're first being taught canonical quantization in which basically you start with a Hamiltonian or Lagrangian of a classical field and you quantize by replacing the field variables with elements of an algebra obeying some proper commutation (bosonic) or anti-commutation (fermionic) relations, and then finding a suitable realization of these relations as operators acting on a Fock space. Path integrals are not really more rigorous because we don't know how to properly define the set of paths to integrate on.

For canonical quantization, the whole procedure is fishy right from the start because you go from commuting quantity to anti-commuting quantities, so in which initial order do you replace your symbols ? It is at best ambiguous. In general people choose normal ordering, in which all annihilation operators appears to the right of creation operators, but it could be otherwise and then you would arrive at a slightly different Hamiltonian or Lagrangian. This is related to the "Correspondence Problem", but I don't have the mathematical background to really dig meaningfully into this.

Quantum field theories are mathematical messes for which we somehow have no idea how to construct from bottom-down. And this gave rise to more serious infinities than the apparent infinite zero-point energy. These more serious infinities appears directly into correlation function, which are the important quantities relevant for measurements. These infinities are dealt with using the whole renormalization scheme. Basically you end up to trading some predictability power to get predictability at all. This is where these numerical parameters we have to measure to put in the Standard Model come from.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
Re: Quantum Field Theory question [Re: deimya]
    #8402187 - 05/14/08 07:21 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

deimya said:

For canonical quantization, the whole procedure is fishy right from the start because you go from commuting quantity to anti-commuting quantities, so in which initial order do you replace your symbols ? It is at best ambiguous. In general people choose normal ordering, in which all annihilation operators appears to the right of creation operators, but it could be otherwise and then you would arrive at a slightly different Hamiltonian or Lagrangian. This is related to the "Correspondence Problem", but I don't have the mathematical background to really dig meaningfully into this.



Do you know of any literature on the correspondence problem. The only correspondence problem Im aware of is for computer vision systems. Just seems odd that they are canceling out infinities, mathematically that is. Interesting subject though, and really not as abstract as I thought it would be. The math really isnt so bad so far

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* String Theory and Quantum Physics.
( 1 2 all )
ergot 5,219 24 01/03/04 01:02 AM
by MarioNett
* Sound driver question superpimp 1,425 13 07/15/03 11:54 AM
by AnimaAnimus
* Big Bang Theory Put To Test Jackal 957 6 06/19/03 08:18 PM
by whiterasta
* Earths magnetic field grows weaker. MetaShroom 906 4 01/17/04 02:25 AM
by Le_Canard
* Boards and cpus question
( 1 2 all )
Demiurge 3,304 22 08/23/03 10:59 AM
by fIsh in my head
* IP questions
( 1 2 all )
Zen Peddler 3,628 20 09/20/02 01:41 PM
by llib
* man...wtf...computer question Cubieman420 1,846 16 07/28/03 10:29 AM
by wingnutx
* computor question Dobie 1,198 14 01/07/04 05:59 PM
by windex

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
1,400 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.