## PHY2403H Quantum Field Theory. Lecture 14: Time evolution, Hamiltonian perturbation, ground state. Taught by Prof. Erich Poppitz

### DISCLAIMER: Very rough notes from class, with some additional side notes.

These are notes for the UofT course PHY2403H, Quantum Field Theory, taught by Prof. Erich Poppitz, fall 2018.

## Review

Given a field $$\phi(t_0, \Bx)$$, satisfying the commutation relations
\label{eqn:qftLecture14:20}
\antisymmetric{\pi(t_0, \Bx)}{\phi(t_0, \By)} = -i \delta(\Bx – \By)

we introduced an interaction picture field given by
\label{eqn:qftLecture14:40}
\phi_I(t, x) = e^{i H_0(t- t_0)} \phi(t_0, \Bx) e^{-iH_0(t – t_0)}

related to the Heisenberg picture representation by
\label{eqn:qftLecture14:60}
\phi_H(t, x)
= e^{i H(t- t_0)} \phi(t_0, \Bx) e^{-iH(t – t_0)}
= U^\dagger(t, t_0) \phi_I(t, \Bx) U(t, t_0),

where $$U(t, t_0)$$ is the time evolution operator.
\label{eqn:qftLecture14:80}
U(t, t_0) =
e^{i H_0(t – t_0)}
e^{-i H(t – t_0)}

We argued that
\label{eqn:qftLecture14:100}
i \PD{t}{} U(t, t_0) = H_{\text{I,int}}(t) U(t, t_0)

We found the glorious expression
\label{eqn:qftLecture14:120}
\boxed{
\begin{aligned}
U(t, t_0)
&= T \exp{\lr{ -i \int_{t_0}^t H_{\text{I,int}}(t’) dt’}} \\
&=
\sum_{n = 0}^\infty \frac{(-i)^n}{n!} \int_{t_0}^t dt_1 dt_2 \cdots dt_n T\lr{ H_{\text{I,int}}(t_1) H_{\text{I,int}}(t_2) \cdots H_{\text{I,int}}(t_n) }
\end{aligned}
}

However, what we are really after is
\label{eqn:qftLecture14:140}
\bra{\Omega} T(\phi(x_1) \cdots \phi(x_n)) \ket{\Omega}

Such a product has many labels and names, and we’ll describe it as “vacuum expectation values of time-ordered products of arbitrary #’s of local Heisenberg operators”.

## Perturbation

Following section 4.2, [1].

\label{eqn:qftLecture14:160}
\begin{aligned}
H &= \text{exact Hamiltonian} = H_0 + H_{\text{int}}
\\
H_0 &= \text{free Hamiltonian.
}
\end{aligned}

We know all about $$H_0$$ and assume that it has a lowest (ground state) $$\ket{0}$$, the “vacuum” state of $$H_0$$.

$$H$$ has eigenstates, in particular $$H$$ is assumed to have a unique ground state $$\ket{\Omega}$$ satisfying
\label{eqn:qftLecture14:180}
H \ket{\Omega} = \ket{\Omega} E_0,

and has states $$\ket{n}$$, representing excited (non-vacuum states with energies > $$E_0$$).
These states are assumed to be a complete basis
\label{eqn:qftLecture14:200}
\mathbf{1} = \ket{\Omega}\bra{\Omega} + \sum_n \ket{n}\bra{n} + \int dn \ket{n}\bra{n}.

The latter terms may be written with a superimposed sum-integral notation as
\label{eqn:qftLecture14:440}
\sum_n + \int dn
=
{\int\kern-1em\sum}_n,

so the identity operator takes the more compact form
\label{eqn:qftLecture14:460}
\mathbf{1} = \ket{\Omega}\bra{\Omega} + {\int\kern-1em\sum}_n \ket{n}\bra{n}.

For some time $$T$$ we have
\label{eqn:qftLecture14:220}
e^{-i H T} \ket{0} = e^{-i H T}
\lr{
\ket{\Omega}\braket{\Omega}{0} + {\int\kern-1em\sum}_n \ket{n}\braket{n}{0}
}.

We now wish to argue that the $${\int\kern-1em\sum}_n$$ term can be ignored.

### Argument 1:

This is something of a fast one, but one can consider a formal transformation $$T \rightarrow T(1 – i \epsilon)$$, where $$\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+$$, and consider very large $$T$$. This gives
\label{eqn:qftLecture14:240}
\begin{aligned}
\lim_{T \rightarrow \infty, \epsilon \rightarrow 0^+}
e^{-i H T(1 – i \epsilon)} \ket{0}
&=
\lim_{T \rightarrow \infty, \epsilon \rightarrow 0^+}
e^{-i H T(1 – i \epsilon)}
\lr{
\ket{\Omega}\braket{\Omega}{0} + {\int\kern-1em\sum}_n \ket{n}\braket{n}{0}
} \\
&=
\lim_{T \rightarrow \infty, \epsilon \rightarrow 0^+}
e^{-i E_0 T – E_0 \epsilon T}
\ket{\Omega}\braket{\Omega}{0} + {\int\kern-1em\sum}_n e^{-i E_n T – \epsilon E_n T} \ket{n}\braket{n}{0} \\
&=
\lim_{T \rightarrow \infty, \epsilon \rightarrow 0^+}
e^{-i E_0 T – E_0 \epsilon T}
\lr{
\ket{\Omega}\braket{\Omega}{0} + {\int\kern-1em\sum}_n e^{-i (E_n -E_0) T – \epsilon T (E_n – E_0)} \ket{n}\braket{n}{0}
}
\end{aligned}

The limits are evaluated by first taking $$T$$ to infinity, then only after that take $$\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+$$. Doing this, the sum is dominated by the ground state contribution, since each excited state also has a $$e^{-\epsilon T(E_n – E_0)}$$ suppression factor (in addition to the leading suppression factor).

### Argument 2:

With the hand waving required for the argument above, it’s worth pointing other (less formal) ways to arrive at the same result. We can write
\label{eqn:qftLecture14:260}
sectionumInt \ket{n}\bra{n} \rightarrow
\sum_k \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2 \pi)^3} \ket{\Bp, k}\bra{\Bp, k}

where $$k$$ is some unknown quantity that we are summing over.
If we have
\label{eqn:qftLecture14:280}
H \ket{\Bp, k} = E_{\Bp, k} \ket{\Bp, k},

then
\label{eqn:qftLecture14:300}
e^{-i H T} sectionumInt \ket{n}\bra{n}
=
\sum_k \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2 \pi)^3} \ket{\Bp, k} e^{-i E_{\Bp, k}} \bra{\Bp, k}.

If we take matrix elements
\label{eqn:qftLecture14:320}
\begin{aligned}
\bra{A}
e^{-i H T} sectionumInt \ket{n}\bra{n} \ket{B}
&=
\sum_k \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2 \pi)^3} \braket{A}{\Bp, k} e^{-i E_{\Bp, k}} \braket{\Bp, k}{B} \\
&=
\sum_k \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2 \pi)^3} e^{-i E_{\Bp, k}} f(\Bp).
\end{aligned}

If we assume that $$f(\Bp)$$ is a well behaved smooth function, we have “infinite” frequency oscillation within the envelope provided by the amplitude of that function, as depicted in fig. 1.
The Riemann-Lebesgue lemma [2] describes such integrals, the result of which is that such an integral goes to zero. This is a different sort of hand waving argument, but either way, we can argue that only the ground state contributes to the sum \ref{eqn:qftLecture14:220} above.

fig. 1. High frequency oscillations within envelope of well behaved function.

### Ground state of the perturbed Hamiltonian.

With the excited states ignored, we are left with
\label{eqn:qftLecture14:340}
e^{-i H T} \ket{0} = e^{-i E_0 T} \ket{\Omega}\braket{\Omega}{0}

in the $$T \rightarrow \infty(1 – i \epsilon)$$ limit. We can now write the ground state as

\label{eqn:qftLecture14:360}
\begin{aligned}
\ket{\Omega}
&=
\evalbar{
\frac{ e^{i E_0 T – i H T } \ket{0} }{
\braket{\Omega}{0}
}
}{ T \rightarrow \infty(1 – i \epsilon) } \\
&=
\evalbar{
\frac{ e^{- i H T } \ket{0} }{
e^{-i E_0 T} \braket{\Omega}{0}
}
}{ T \rightarrow \infty(1 – i \epsilon) }.
\end{aligned}

Shifting the very large $$T \rightarrow T + t_0$$ shouldn’t change things, so
\label{eqn:qftLecture14:480}
\ket{\Omega}
=
\evalbar{
\frac{ e^{- i H (T + t_0) } \ket{0} }{
e^{-i E_0 (T + t_0) } \braket{\Omega}{0}
}
}{ T \rightarrow \infty(1 – i \epsilon) }.

A bit of manipulation shows that the operator in the numerator has the structure of a time evolution operator.

### Claim: (DIY):

\Cref{eqn:qftLecture14:80}, \ref{eqn:qftLecture14:120} may be generalized to
\label{eqn:qftLecture14:400}
U(t, t’) = e^{i H_0(t – t_0)} e^{-i H(t – t’)} e^{-i H_0(t’ – t_0)} =
T \exp{\lr{ -i \int_{t’}^t H_{\text{I,int}}(t”) dt”}}.

Observe that we recover \ref{eqn:qftLecture14:120} when $$t’ = t_0$$.  Using \ref{eqn:qftLecture14:400} we find
\label{eqn:qftLecture14:520}
\begin{aligned}
U(t_0, -T) \ket{0}
&= e^{i H_0(t_0 – t_0)} e^{-i H(t_0 + T)} e^{-i H_0(-T – t_0)} \ket{0} \\
&= e^{-i H(t_0 + T)} e^{-i H_0(-T – t_0)} \ket{0} \\
&= e^{-i H(t_0 + T)} \ket{0},
\end{aligned}

where we use the fact that $$e^{i H_0 \tau} \ket{0} = \lr{ 1 + i H_0 \tau + \cdots } \ket{0} = 1 \ket{0},$$ since $$H_0 \ket{0} = 0$$.

We are left with
\label{eqn:qftLecture14:420}
\boxed{
\ket{\Omega}
= \frac{U(t_0, -T) \ket{0} }{e^{-i E_0(t_0 – (-T))} \braket{\Omega}{0}}.
}

We are close to where we want to be. Wednesday we finish off, and then start scattering and Feynman diagrams.

# References

[1] Michael E Peskin and Daniel V Schroeder. An introduction to Quantum Field Theory. Westview, 1995.

[2] Wikipedia contributors. Riemann-lebesgue lemma — Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 2018. URL https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riemann%E2%80%93Lebesgue_lemma&oldid=856778941. [Online; accessed 29-October-2018].

## Hamiltonian for the non-homogeneous Klein-Gordon equation

In class we derived the field for the non-homogeneous Klein-Gordon equation
\label{eqn:nonhomoKGhamiltonian:20}
\begin{aligned}
\phi(x)
&= \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \inv{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}}
\evalbar{
\lr{
e^{-i p \cdot x} \lr{ a_\Bp + \frac{ i \tilde{j}(p) }{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}} }
+
e^{i p \cdot x} \lr{ a_\Bp^\dagger – \frac{ i \tilde{j}^\conj(p) }{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}} }
}
}
{
p^0 = \omega_\Bp
} \\
&= \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \inv{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}}
\lr{
e^{-i \omega_\Bp t + i \Bp \cdot \Bx} \lr{ a_\Bp + \frac{ i \tilde{j}(p) }{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}} }
+
e^{i \omega_\Bp t – i \Bp \cdot \Bx} \lr{ a_\Bp^\dagger – \frac{ i \tilde{j}^\conj(p) }{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}} }
}.
\end{aligned}

This means that we have
\label{eqn:nonhomoKGhamiltonian:40}
\begin{aligned}
\pi = \dot{\phi}
&= \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{i \omega_\Bp}{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}}
\lr{
– e^{-i \omega_\Bp t + i \Bp \cdot \Bx} \lr{ a_\Bp + \frac{ i \tilde{j}(p) }{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}} }
+
e^{i \omega_\Bp t – i \Bp \cdot \Bx} \lr{ a_\Bp^\dagger – \frac{ i \tilde{j}^\conj(p) }{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}} }
} \\
&= \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{i p_k}{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}}
\lr{
e^{-i \omega_\Bp t + i \Bp \cdot \Bx} \lr{ a_\Bp + \frac{ i \tilde{j}(p) }{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}} }

e^{i \omega_\Bp t – i \Bp \cdot \Bx} \lr{ a_\Bp^\dagger – \frac{ i \tilde{j}^\conj(p) }{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}} }
},
\end{aligned}

and could plug these into the Hamiltonian
\label{eqn:nonhomoKGhamiltonian:60}
H = \int d^3 p \lr{ \inv{2} \pi^2 + \inv{2} \lr{ \spacegrad \phi}^2 + \frac{m^2}{2} \phi^2 },

to find $$H$$ in terms of $$\tilde{j}$$ and $$a_\Bp^\dagger, a_\Bp$$. The result was mentioned in class, and it was left as an exercise to verify.

There’s an easy way and a dumb way to do this exercise. I did it the dumb way, and then after suffering through two long pages, where the equations were so long that I had to write on the paper sideways, I realized the way I should have done it.

The easy way is to observe that we’ve already done exactly this for the case $$\tilde{j} = 0$$, which had the answer
\label{eqn:nonhomoKGhamiltonian:80}
H = \inv{2} \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2 \pi)^3} \omega_\Bp \lr{ a_\Bp^\dagger a_\Bp + a_\Bp a_\Bp^\dagger }.

To handle this more general case, all we have to do is apply a transformation
\label{eqn:nonhomoKGhamiltonian:100}
a_\Bp \rightarrow
a_\Bp + \frac{i \tilde{j}(p)}{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}},

to \ref{eqn:nonhomoKGhamiltonian:80}, which gives
\label{eqn:nonhomoKGhamiltonian:120}
\begin{aligned}
H
&=
\inv{2} \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2 \pi)^3} \omega_\Bp \lr{\lr{ a_\Bp + \frac{i \tilde{j}(p)}{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}} }^\dagger\lr{ a_\Bp + \frac{i \tilde{j}(p)}{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}} } +\lr{ a_\Bp + \frac{i \tilde{j}(p)}{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}} }\lr{ a_\Bp + \frac{i \tilde{j}(p)}{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}} }^\dagger } \\
&=
\inv{2} \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2 \pi)^3} \omega_\Bp \lr{\lr{ a_\Bp^\dagger – \frac{i \tilde{j}^\conj(p)}{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}} } \lr{ a_\Bp + \frac{i \tilde{j}(p)}{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}} } +\lr{ a_\Bp + \frac{i \tilde{j}(p)}{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}} }\lr{ a_\Bp^\dagger – \frac{i \tilde{j}^\conj(p)}{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}} }
}.
\end{aligned}

Like the $$\tilde{j} = 0$$ case, we can use normal ordering. This is easily seen by direct expansion:
\label{eqn:nonhomoKGhamiltonian:140}
\begin{aligned}
\lr{ a_\Bp^\dagger – \frac{i \tilde{j}^\conj(p)}{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}} } \lr{ a_\Bp + \frac{i \tilde{j}(p)}{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}} }
&=
a_\Bp^\dagger a_\Bp
– \frac{i \tilde{j}^\conj(p) a_\Bp}{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}}
+ \frac{ a_\Bp^\dagger i \tilde{j}^\conj(p)}{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}}
+ \frac{\Abs{j}^2}{2 \omega_\Bp} \\
\lr{ a_\Bp + \frac{i \tilde{j}(p)}{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}} }\lr{ a_\Bp^\dagger – \frac{i \tilde{j}^\conj(p)}{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}} }
&=
a_\Bp^\dagger a_\Bp
+ \frac{i \tilde{j}^\conj(p) a_\Bp^\dagger}{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}}
– \frac{ a_\Bp i \tilde{j}^\conj(p)}{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}}
+ \frac{\Abs{j}^2}{2 \omega_\Bp}.
\end{aligned}

Because $$\tilde{j}$$ is just a complex valued function, it commutes with $$a_\Bp, a_\Bp^\dagger$$, and these are equal up to the normal ordering, allowing us to write
\label{eqn:nonhomoKGhamiltonian:160}
:H: =
\int \frac{d^3 p}{(2 \pi)^3} \omega_\Bp \lr{ a_\Bp^\dagger – \frac{i \tilde{j}^\conj(p)}{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}}} \lr{ a_\Bp + \frac{i \tilde{j}(p)}{\sqrt{2 \omega_\Bp}} },

which is the result mentioned in class.

## PHY2403H Quantum Field Theory. Lecture 4: Scalar action, least action principle, Euler-Lagrange equations for a field, canonical quantization. Taught by Prof. Erich Poppitz

### DISCLAIMER: Very rough notes from class. May have some additional side notes, but otherwise probably barely edited.

These are notes for the UofT course PHY2403H, Quantum Field Theory I, taught by Prof. Erich Poppitz fall 2018.

## Principles (cont.)

• Lorentz (Poincar\’e : Lorentz and spacetime translations)
• locality
• dimensional analysis
• gauge invariance

These are the requirements for an action. We postulated an action that had the form
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:20}
\int d^d x \partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi,

called the “Kinetic term”, which mimics $$\int dt \dot{q}^2$$ that we’d see in quantum or classical mechanics. In principle there exists an infinite number of local Poincar\’e invariant terms that we can write. Examples:

• $$\partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi$$
• $$\partial_\mu \phi \partial_\nu \partial^\nu \partial^\mu \phi$$
• $$\lr{\partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi}^2$$
• $$f(\phi) \partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi$$
• $$f(\phi, \partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi)$$
• $$V(\phi)$$

It turns out that nature (i.e. three spatial dimensions and one time dimension) is described by a finite number of terms. We will now utilize dimensional analysis to determine some of the allowed forms of the action for scalar field theories in $$d = 2, 3, 4, 5$$ dimensions. Even though the real world is only $$d = 4$$, some of the $$d < 4$$ theories are relevant in condensed matter studies, and $$d = 5$$ is just for fun (but also applies to string theories.)

With $$[x] \sim \inv{M}$$ in natural units, we must define $$[\phi]$$ such that the kinetic term is dimensionless in d spacetime dimensions

\label{eqn:qftLecture4:40}
\begin{aligned}
[d^d x] &\sim \inv{M^d} \\
[\partial_\mu] &\sim M
\end{aligned}

so it must be that
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:60}
[\phi] = M^{(d-2)/2}

It will be easier to characterize the dimensionality of any given term by the power of the mass units, that is

\label{eqn:qftLecture4:80}
\begin{aligned}
[\text{mass}] &= 1 \\
[d^d x] &= -d \\
[\partial_\mu] &= 1 \\
[\phi] &= (d-2)/2 \\
[S] &= 0.
\end{aligned}

Since the action is
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:100}
S = \int d^d x \lr{ \LL(\phi, \partial_\mu \phi) },

and because action had dimensions of $$\Hbar$$, so in natural units, it must be dimensionless, the Lagrangian density dimensions must be $$[d]$$. We will abuse language in QFT and call the Lagrangian density the Lagrangian.

## $$d = 2$$

Because $$[\partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi ] = 2$$, the scalar field must be dimension zero, or in symbols
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:120}
[\phi] = 0.

This means that introducing any function $$f(\phi) = 1 + a \phi + b\phi^2 + c \phi^3 + \cdots$$ is also dimensionless, and
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:140}
[f(\phi) \partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi ] = 2,

for any $$f(\phi)$$. Another implication of this is that the a potential term in the Lagrangian $$[V(\phi)] = 0$$ needs a coupling constant of dimension 2. Letting $$\mu$$ have mass dimensions, our Lagrangian must have the form
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:160}
f(\phi) \partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi + \mu^2 V(\phi).

An infinite number of coupling constants of positive mass dimensions for $$V(\phi)$$ are also allowed. If we have higher order derivative terms, then we need to compensate for the negative mass dimensions. Example (still for $$d = 2$$).
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:180}
\LL =
f(\phi) \partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi + \mu^2 V(\phi) + \inv{{\mu’}^2}\partial_\mu \phi \partial_\nu \partial^\nu \partial^\mu \phi + \lr{ \partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi }^2 \inv{\tilde{\mu}^2}.

The last two terms, called \underline{couplings} (i.e. any non-kinetic term), are examples of terms with negative mass dimension. There is an infinite number of those in any theory in any dimension.

### Definitions

• Couplings that are dimensionless are called (classically) marginal.
• Couplings that have positive mass dimension are called (classically) relevant.
• Couplings that have negative mass dimension are called (classically) irrelevant.

In QFT we are generally interested in the couplings that are measurable at long distances for some given energy. Classically irrelevant theories are generally not interesting in $$d > 2$$, so we are very lucky that we don’t live in three dimensional space. This means that we can get away with a finite number of classically marginal and relevant couplings in 3 or 4 dimensions. This was mentioned in the Wilczek’s article referenced in the class forum [1]\footnote{There’s currently more in that article that I don’t understand than I do, so it is hard to find it terribly illuminating.}

Long distance physics in any dimension is described by the marginal and relevant couplings. The irrelevant couplings die off at low energy. In two dimensions, a priori, an infinite number of marginal and relevant couplings are possible. 2D is a bad place to live!

## $$d = 3$$

Now we have
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:200}
[\phi] = \inv{2}

so that
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:220}
[\partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi] = 3.

A 3D Lagrangian could have local terms such as
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:240}
\LL = \partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi + m^2 \phi^2 + \mu^{3/2} \phi^3 + \mu’ \phi^4
+ \lr{\mu”}{1/2} \phi^5
+ \lambda \phi^6.

where $$m, \mu, \mu”$$ all have mass dimensions, and $$\lambda$$ is dimensionless. i.e. $$m, \mu, \mu”$$ are relevant, and $$\lambda$$ marginal. We stop at the sixth power, since any power after that will be irrelevant.

## $$d = 4$$

Now we have
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:260}
[\phi] = 1

so that
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:280}
[\partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi] = 4.

In this number of dimensions $$\phi^k \partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu$$ is an irrelevant coupling.

A 4D Lagrangian could have local terms such as
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:300}
\LL = \partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi + m^2 \phi^2 + \mu \phi^3 + \lambda \phi^4.

where $$m, \mu$$ have mass dimensions, and $$\lambda$$ is dimensionless. i.e. $$m, \mu$$ are relevant, and $$\lambda$$ is marginal.

## $$d = 5$$

Now we have
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:320}
[\phi] = \frac{3}{2},

so that
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:340}
[\partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi] = 5.

A 5D Lagrangian could have local terms such as
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:360}
\LL = \partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi + m^2 \phi^2 + \sqrt{\mu} \phi^3 + \inv{\mu’} \phi^4.

where $$m, \mu, \mu’$$ all have mass dimensions. In 5D there are no marginal couplings. Dimension 4 is the last dimension where marginal couplings exist. In condensed matter physics 4D is called the “upper critical dimension”.

From the point of view of particle physics, all the terms in the Lagrangian must be the ones that are relevant at long distances.

## Least action principle (classical field theory).

Now we want to study 4D scalar theories. We have some action
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:380}
S[\phi] = \int d^4 x \LL(\phi, \partial_\mu \phi).

Let’s keep an example such as the following in mind
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:400}
\LL = \underbrace{\inv{2} \partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi}_{\text{Kinetic term}} – \underbrace{m^2 \phi – \lambda \phi^4}_{\text{all relevant and marginal couplings}}.

The even powers can be justified by assuming there is some symmetry that kills the odd powered terms.

fig. 1. Cylindrical spacetime boundary.

We will be integrating over a space time region such as that depicted in fig. 1, where a cylindrical spatial cross section is depicted that we allow to tend towards infinity. We demand that the field is fixed on the infinite spatial boundaries. The easiest way to demand that the field dies off on the spatial boundaries, that is
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:420}
\lim_{\Abs{\Bx} \rightarrow \infty} \phi(\Bx) \rightarrow 0.

The functional $$\phi(\Bx, t)$$ that obeys the boundary condition as stated extremizes $$S[\phi]$$.

Extremizing the action means that we seek $$\phi(\Bx, t)$$
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:440}
\delta S[\phi] = 0 = S[\phi + \delta \phi] – S[\phi].

How do we compute the variation?
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:460}
\begin{aligned}
\delta S
&= \int d^d x \lr{ \LL(\phi + \delta \phi, \partial_\mu \phi + \partial_\mu \delta \phi) – \LL(\phi, \partial_\mu \phi) } \\
&= \int d^d x \lr{ \PD{\phi}{\LL} \delta \phi + \PD{(\partial_mu \phi)}{\LL} (\partial_\mu \delta \phi) } \\
&= \int d^d x \lr{ \PD{\phi}{\LL} \delta \phi
+ \partial_\mu \lr{ \PD{(\partial_mu \phi)}{\LL} \delta \phi}
– \lr{ \partial_\mu \PD{(\partial_mu \phi)}{\LL} } \delta \phi
} \\
&=
\int d^d x
\delta \phi
\lr{ \PD{\phi}{\LL}
– \partial_\mu \PD{(\partial_mu \phi)}{\LL} }
+ \int d^3 \sigma_\mu \lr{ \PD{(\partial_\mu \phi)}{\LL} \delta \phi }
\end{aligned}

If we are explicit about the boundary term, we write it as
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:480}
\int dt d^3 \Bx \partial_t \lr{ \PD{(\partial_t \phi)}{\LL} \delta \phi }
=
\int d^3 \Bx \evalrange{ \PD{(\partial_t \phi)}{\LL} \delta \phi }{t = -T}{t = T}
– \int dt d^2 \BS \cdot \lr{ \PD{(\spacegrad \phi)}{\LL} \delta \phi }.

but $$\delta \phi = 0$$ at $$t = \pm T$$ and also at the spatial boundaries of the integration region.

This leaves
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:500}
\delta S[\phi] = \int d^d x \delta \phi
\lr{ \PD{\phi}{\LL} – \partial_\mu \PD{(\partial_mu \phi)}{\LL} } = 0 \forall \delta \phi.

That is

\label{eqn:qftLecture4:540}
\boxed{
\PD{\phi}{\LL} – \partial_\mu \PD{(\partial_mu \phi)}{\LL} = 0.
}

This are the Euler-Lagrange equations for a single scalar field.

Returning to our sample scalar Lagrangian
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:560}
\LL = \inv{2} \partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi – \inv{2} m^2 \phi^2 – \frac{\lambda}{4} \phi^4.

This example is related to the Ising model which has a $$\phi \rightarrow -\phi$$ symmetry. Applying the Euler-Lagrange equations, we have
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:580}
\PD{\phi}{\LL} = -m^2 \phi – \lambda \phi^3,

and
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:600}
\begin{aligned}
\PD{(\partial_\mu \phi)}{\LL}
&=
\PD{(\partial_\mu \phi)}{} \lr{
\inv{2} \partial_\nu \phi \partial^\nu \phi } \\
&=
\inv{2} \partial^\nu \phi
\PD{(\partial_\mu \phi)}{}
\partial_\nu \phi
+
\inv{2} \partial_\nu \phi
\PD{(\partial_\mu \phi)}{}
\partial_\alpha \phi g^{\nu\alpha} \\
&=
\inv{2} \partial^\mu \phi
+
\inv{2} \partial_\nu \phi g^{\nu\mu} \\
&=
\partial^\mu \phi
\end{aligned}

so we have
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:620}
\begin{aligned}
0
&=
\PD{\phi}{\LL} -\partial_\mu
\PD{(\partial_\mu \phi)}{\LL} \\
&=
-m^2 \phi – \lambda \phi^3 – \partial_\mu \partial^\mu \phi.
\end{aligned}

For $$\lambda = 0$$, the free field theory limit, this is just
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:640}
\partial_\mu \partial^\mu \phi + m^2 \phi = 0.

Written out from the observer frame, this is
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:660}
(\partial_t)^2 \phi – \spacegrad^2 \phi + m^2 \phi = 0.

With a non-zero mass term
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:680}
\lr{ \partial_t^2 – \spacegrad^2 + m^2 } \phi = 0,

is called the Klein-Gordan equation.

If we also had $$m = 0$$ we’d have
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:700}
\lr{ \partial_t^2 – \spacegrad^2 } \phi = 0,

which is the wave equation (for a massless free field). This is also called the D’Alembert equation, which is familiar from electromagnetism where we have
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:720}
\begin{aligned}
\lr{ \partial_t^2 – \spacegrad^2 } \BE &= 0 \\
\lr{ \partial_t^2 – \spacegrad^2 } \BB &= 0,
\end{aligned}

in a source free region.

## Canonical quantization.

\label{eqn:qftLecture4:740}
\LL = \inv{2} \dot{q} – \frac{\omega^2}{2} q^2

This has solution $$\ddot{q} = – \omega^2 q$$.

Let
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:760}
p = \PD{\dot{q}}{\LL} = \dot{q}

\label{eqn:qftLecture4:780}
H(p,q) = \evalbar{p \dot{q} – \LL}{\dot{q}(p, q)}
= p p – \inv{2} p^2 + \frac{\omega^2}{2} q^2 = \frac{p^2}{2} + \frac{\omega^2}{2} q^2

In QM we quantize by mapping Poisson brackets to commutators.
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:800}
\antisymmetric{\hatp}{\hat{q}} = -i

One way to represent is to say that states are $$\Psi(\hat{q})$$, a wave function, $$\hat{q}$$ acts by $$q$$
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:820}
\hat{q} \Psi = q \Psi(q)

With
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:840}
\hatp = -i \PD{q}{},

so
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:860}
\antisymmetric{ -i \PD{q}{} } { q} = -i

Let’s introduce an explicit space time split. We’ll write
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:880}
L = \int d^3 x \lr{
\inv{2} (\partial_0 \phi(\Bx, t))^2 – \inv{2} \lr{ \spacegrad \phi(\Bx, t) }^2 – \frac{m^2}{2} \phi
},

so that the action is
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:900}
S = \int dt L.

The dynamical variables are $$\phi(\Bx)$$. We define
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:920}
\begin{aligned}
\pi(\Bx, t) = \frac{\delta L}{\delta (\partial_0 \phi(\Bx, t))}
&=
\partial_0 \phi(\Bx, t) \\
&=
\dot{\phi}(\Bx, t),
\end{aligned}

called the canonical momentum, or the momentum conjugate to $$\phi(\Bx, t)$$. Why $$\delta$$? Has to do with an implicit Dirac function to eliminate the integral?

\label{eqn:qftLecture4:940}
\begin{aligned}
H
&= \int d^3 x \evalbar{\lr{ \pi(\bar{\Bx}, t) \dot{\phi}(\bar{\Bx}, t) – L }}{\dot{\phi}(\bar{\Bx}, t) = \pi(x, t) } \\
&= \int d^3 x \lr{ (\pi(\Bx, t))^2 – \inv{2} (\pi(\Bx, t))^2 + \inv{2} (\spacegrad \phi)^2 + \frac{m}{2} \phi^2 },
\end{aligned}

or
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:960}
H
= \int d^3 x \lr{ \inv{2} (\pi(\Bx, t))^2 + \inv{2} (\spacegrad \phi(\Bx, t))^2 + \frac{m}{2} (\phi(\Bx, t))^2 }

In analogy to the momentum, position commutator in QM
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:1000}
\antisymmetric{\hat{p}_i}{\hat{q}_j} = -i \delta_{ij},

we “quantize” the scalar field theory by promoting $$\pi, \phi$$ to operators and insisting that they also obey a commutator relationship
\label{eqn:qftLecture4:980}
\antisymmetric{\pi(\Bx, t)}{\phi(\By, t)} = -i \delta^3(\Bx – \By).

# References

[1] Frank Wilczek. Fundamental constants. arXiv preprint arXiv:0708.4361, 2007. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/0708.4361.

## Hamiltonian for a scalar field

January 3, 2016 phy2403 , , ,

In [1] it is left as an exersize to expand the scalar field Hamiltonian in terms of the raising and lowering operators. Let’s do that.

The field operator expanded in terms of the raising and lowering operators is

\label{eqn:scalarFieldHamiltonian:20}
\phi(x) =
\int \frac{ d^3 k}{ (2 \pi)^{3/2} \sqrt{ 2 \omega_k } } \lr{
a_k e^{-i k \cdot x}
+ a_k^\dagger e^{i k \cdot x}
}.

Note that $$x$$ and $$k$$ here are both four-vectors, so this field is dependent on a spacetime point, but the integration is over a spatial volume.

The Hamiltonian in terms of the fields was
\label{eqn:scalarFieldHamiltonian:40}
H = \inv{2} \int d^3 x \lr{ \Pi^2 + \lr{ \spacegrad \phi }^2 + \mu^2 \phi^2 }.

The field derivatives are

\label{eqn:scalarFieldHamiltonian:60}
\Pi
= \partial_0 \phi
= \partial_0
\int \frac{ d^3 k}{ (2 \pi)^{3/2} \sqrt{ 2 \omega_k } } \lr{
a_k e^{-i \omega_k t + i \Bk \cdot \Bx}
+a_k^\dagger e^{i \omega_k t – i \Bk \cdot \Bx}
}
=
i
\int \frac{ d^3 k}{ (2 \pi)^{3/2} \frac{\omega_k}{ 2 \omega_k } } \lr{
-a_k e^{-i \omega_k t + i \Bk \cdot \Bx}
+a_k^\dagger e^{i \omega_k t – i \Bk \cdot \Bx}
},

and

\label{eqn:scalarFieldHamiltonian:80}
\partial_n \phi
= \partial_n
\int \frac{ d^3 k}{ (2 \pi)^{3/2} \sqrt{ 2 \omega_k } } \lr{
a_k e^{-i \omega_k t + i \Bk \cdot \Bx}
+a_k^\dagger e^{i \omega_k t – i \Bk \cdot \Bx}
}
=
i
\int \frac{ d^3 k k^n}{ (2 \pi)^{3/2} \sqrt{ 2 \omega_k } } \lr{
a_k e^{-i \omega_k t + i \Bk \cdot \Bx}
-a_k^\dagger e^{i \omega_k t – i \Bk \cdot \Bx}
}.

Introducing a second set of momentum variables with $$j = \Abs{\Bj}$$, the momentum portion of the Hamiltonian is

\label{eqn:scalarFieldHamiltonian:100}
\begin{aligned}
\inv{2} \int d^3 x \Pi^2
&=
-\inv{2}
\inv{(2 \pi)^{3}}
\int d^3 x
\int
d^3 j
d^3 k
\inv{ \sqrt{ 4 \omega_j \omega_k } }
\omega_j
\omega_k
\lr{
-a_j e^{-i \omega_j t + i \Bj \cdot \Bx}
+a_j^\dagger e^{i \omega_j t – i \Bj \cdot \Bx}
}
\lr{
-a_k e^{-i \omega_k t + i \Bk \cdot \Bx}
+a_k^\dagger e^{i \omega_k t – i \Bk \cdot \Bx}
} \\
&=
-\inv{4}
\inv{(2 \pi)^{3}}
\int d^3 x
\int
d^3 j
d^3 k
\sqrt{
\omega_j
\omega_k}
\lr{
a_j^\dagger a_k^\dagger e^{i (\omega_k + \omega_j) t – i (\Bk + \Bj) \cdot \Bx}
+ a_j a_k e^{-i (\omega_j + \omega_k) t + i (\Bj + \Bk) \cdot \Bx}
– a_j^\dagger a_k e^{-i (\omega_k -\omega_j) t – i (\Bj – \Bk) \cdot \Bx}
– a_j a_k^\dagger e^{-i (\omega_j – \omega_k) t – i (\Bk – \Bj) \cdot \Bx}
} \\
&=
-\inv{4}
\int
d^3 j
d^3 k
\sqrt{
\omega_j
\omega_k}
\lr{
a_j^\dagger a_k^\dagger e^{i (\omega_k + \omega_j) t } \delta^3(\Bk + \Bj)
+ a_j a_k e^{-i (\omega_j + \omega_k) t } \delta^3(-\Bj – \Bk)
– a_j^\dagger a_k e^{-i (\omega_k -\omega_j) t } \delta^3(\Bj – \Bk)
– a_j a_k^\dagger e^{-i (\omega_j – \omega_k) t } \delta^3(\Bk – \Bj)
} \\
&=
-\inv{4}
\int
d^3 k
\omega_k
\lr{
a_{-k}^\dagger a_k^\dagger e^{2 i \omega_k t }
+ a_{-k} a_k e^{- 2 i \omega_k t }
– a_k^\dagger a_k
– a_k a_k^\dagger
}.
\end{aligned}

For the gradient portion of the Hamiltonian we have

\label{eqn:scalarFieldHamiltonian:120}
\begin{aligned}
\inv{2} \int d^3 x \lr{ \spacegrad \phi }^2
&=
-\inv{2}
\inv{(2 \pi)^{3}}
\int d^3 x
\int
d^3 j
d^3 k
\inv{ \sqrt{ 4 \omega_j \omega_k } }
\lr{ \sum_{n=1}^3 j^n k^n }
\lr{
a_j e^{-i \omega_j t + i \Bj \cdot \Bx}
-a_j^\dagger e^{i \omega_j t – i \Bj \cdot \Bx}
}
\lr{
a_k e^{-i \omega_k t + i \Bk \cdot \Bx}
-a_k^\dagger e^{i \omega_k t – i \Bk \cdot \Bx}
} \\
&=
-\inv{4}
\int
d^3 j
d^3 k
\frac{\Bj \cdot \Bk}{ \sqrt{ \omega_j \omega_k } }
\lr{
a_j^\dagger a_k^\dagger e^{i (\omega_k + \omega_j) t } \delta^3(\Bk + \Bj)
+ a_j a_k e^{-i (\omega_j + \omega_k) t } \delta^3(-\Bj – \Bk)
– a_j^\dagger a_k e^{-i (\omega_k -\omega_j) t } \delta^3(\Bj – \Bk)
– a_j a_k^\dagger e^{-i (\omega_j – \omega_k) t } \delta^3(\Bk – \Bj)
} \\
&=
-\inv{4}
\int
d^3 k
\frac{\Bk^2}{ \omega_k }
\lr{
– a_{-k}^\dagger a_k^\dagger e^{2 i \omega_k t }
– a_{-k} a_k e^{- 2 i \omega_k t }
– a_k^\dagger a_k
– a_k a_k^\dagger
}.
\end{aligned}

Finally, for the mass term, we have

\label{eqn:scalarFieldHamiltonian:140}
\begin{aligned}
\inv{2} \int d^3 x \mu^2 \phi^2
&=
\frac{\mu^2}{2}
\inv{(2 \pi)^{3}}
\int d^3 x
\int
d^3 j
d^3 k
\inv{ \sqrt{ 4 \omega_j \omega_k } }
\lr{
a_j e^{-i \omega_j t + i \Bj \cdot \Bx}
+a_j^\dagger e^{i \omega_j t – i \Bj \cdot \Bx}
}
\lr{
a_k e^{-i \omega_k t + i \Bk \cdot \Bx}
+a_k^\dagger e^{i \omega_k t – i \Bk \cdot \Bx}
} \\
&=
\frac{\mu^2}{2}
\inv{(2 \pi)^{3}}
\int d^3 x
\int
d^3 j
d^3 k
\inv{ \sqrt{ 4 \omega_j \omega_k } }
\lr{
a_j a_k e^{-i (\omega_k + \omega_j) t + i (\Bk + \Bj) \cdot \Bx}
+a_j^\dagger a_k^\dagger e^{i (\omega_j + \omega_k) t – i (\Bk + \Bj) \cdot \Bx}
+a_j a_k^\dagger e^{i (\omega_k – \omega_j) t – i (\Bk – \Bj) \cdot \Bx}
+a_j^\dagger a_k e^{-i (\omega_k + \omega_j) t – i (\Bj – \Bk) \cdot \Bx}
} \\
&=
\frac{\mu^2}{2}
\int
d^3 j
d^3 k
\inv{ \sqrt{ 4 \omega_j \omega_k } }
\lr{
a_j a_k e^{-i (\omega_k + \omega_j) t } \delta^3(- \Bk – \Bj)
+a_j^\dagger a_k^\dagger e^{i (\omega_j + \omega_k) t } \delta^3( \Bk + \Bj)
+a_j a_k^\dagger e^{i (\omega_k – \omega_j) t } \delta^3 (\Bk – \Bj)
+a_j^\dagger a_k e^{-i (\omega_k + \omega_j) t } \delta^3 (\Bj – \Bk)
} \\
&=
\frac{\mu^2}{4}
\int
d^3 k
\inv{ \omega_k }
\lr{
a_{-k} a_k e^{- 2 i \omega_k t }
+a_{-k}^\dagger a_k^\dagger e^{2 i \omega_k t }
+a_k a_k^\dagger
+a_k^\dagger a_k
}.
\end{aligned}

Now all the pieces can be put back together again

\label{eqn:scalarFieldHamiltonian:160}
\begin{aligned}
H
&=
\inv{4}
\int d^3 k
\inv{\omega_k}
\lr{
-\omega_k^2
\lr{
a_{-k}^\dagger a_k^\dagger e^{2 i \omega_k t }
+ a_{-k} a_k e^{- 2 i \omega_k t }
– a_k^\dagger a_k
– a_k a_k^\dagger
}
+
\Bk^2
\lr{
a_{-k}^\dagger a_k^\dagger e^{2 i \omega_k t }
+ a_{-k} a_k e^{- 2 i \omega_k t }
+ a_k^\dagger a_k
+ a_k a_k^\dagger
}
+
\mu^2
\lr{
a_{-k} a_k e^{- 2 i \omega_k t }
+a_{-k}^\dagger a_k^\dagger e^{2 i \omega_k t }
+a_k a_k^\dagger
+a_k^\dagger a_k
}
} \\
&=
\inv{4}
\int d^3 k
\inv{\omega_k}
\lr{
a_{-k}^\dagger a_k^\dagger e^{2 i \omega_k t }
\lr{
-\omega_k^2
+ \Bk^2
+
\mu^2
}
+ a_{-k} a_k e^{- 2 i \omega_k t }
\lr{
-\omega_k^2
+ \Bk^2
+
\mu^2
}
+ a_k a_k^\dagger
\lr{
\omega_k^2
+ \Bk^2
+
\mu^2
}
+ a_k^\dagger a_k
\lr{
\omega_k^2
+ \Bk^2
+
\mu^2
}
}.
\end{aligned}

With $$\omega_k^2 = \Bk^2 + \mu^2$$, the time dependent terms are killed leaving
\label{eqn:scalarFieldHamiltonian:180}
H
=
\inv{2}
\int d^3 k
\omega_k
\lr{
a_k a_k^\dagger
+ a_k^\dagger a_k
}.

# References

[1] Michael Luke. PHY2403F Lecture Notes: Quantum Field Theory, 2015. URL lecturenotes.pdf. [Online; accessed 02-Jan-2016].

## Time reversal behavior of solutions to crystal spin Hamiltonian

December 15, 2015 phy1520 , , , ,

### Q: [1] pr 4.12

Solve the spin 1 Hamiltonian
\label{eqn:crystalSpinHamiltonianTimeReversal:20}
H = A S_z^2 + B(S_x^2 – S_y^2).

Is this Hamiltonian invariant under time reversal?

How do the eigenkets change under time reversal?

In spinMatrices.nb the matrix representation of the Hamiltonian is found to be
\label{eqn:crystalSpinHamiltonianTimeReversal:40}
H =
\Hbar^2
\begin{bmatrix}
A & 0 & B \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
B & 0 & A
\end{bmatrix}.

The eigenvalues are
\label{eqn:crystalSpinHamiltonianTimeReversal:60}
\setlr{ 0, A – B, A + B},

and the respective eigenvalues (unnormalized) are

\label{eqn:crystalSpinHamiltonianTimeReversal:80}
\setlr{
\begin{bmatrix}
0 \\
1 \\
0
\end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix}
-1 \\
0 \\
1
\end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix}
1 \\
0 \\
1 \\
\end{bmatrix}
}.

Under time reversal, the Hamiltonian is

\label{eqn:crystalSpinHamiltonianTimeReversal:100}
H \rightarrow A (-S_z)^2 + B ( (-S_x)^2 – (-S_y)^2 ) = H,

so we expect the eigenkets for this Hamiltonian to vary by at most a phase factor. To check this, first recall that the time reversal action on a spin one state is

\label{eqn:crystalSpinHamiltonianTimeReversal:120}
\Theta \ket{1, m} = (-1)^m \ket{1, -m},

or

\label{eqn:crystalSpinHamiltonianTimeReversal:140}
\begin{aligned}
\Theta \ket{1,1} &= -\ket{1,-1} \\
\Theta \ket{1,0} &= \ket{1,0} \\
\Theta \ket{1,-1} &= -\ket{1,1}.
\end{aligned}

Let’s write the eigenkets respectively as

\label{eqn:crystalSpinHamiltonianTimeReversal:160}
\begin{aligned}
\ket{0} &= \ket{1,0} \\
\ket{A-B} &= -\ket{1,-1} + \ket{1,1} \\
\ket{A+B} &= \ket{1,-1} + \ket{1,1}.
\end{aligned}

Under the reversal operation, we should have

\label{eqn:crystalSpinHamiltonianTimeReversal:180}
\begin{aligned}
\Theta \ket{0} &\rightarrow \ket{1,0} \\
\Theta \ket{A-B} &= +\ket{1,-1} – \ket{1,1} \\
\Theta \ket{A+B} &= -\ket{1,-1} – \ket{1,1}.
\end{aligned}

Up to a sign, the time reversed states match the unreversed states, which makes sense given the Hamiltonian invariance.

# References

[1] Jun John Sakurai and Jim J Napolitano. Modern quantum mechanics. Pearson Higher Ed, 2014.