1
$\begingroup$

Consider Free scalar field theory $$ S[\psi^*,\psi] = -\int dx^4 (\partial_\mu \psi^* \partial^\mu \psi + m^2 \psi^* \psi) $$ Upon usual quantisation $$ \hat{\psi}(x) = \int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3 2 E_p} \left( a_p e^{i x_\mu p^\mu} + b^\dagger e^{-i x_\mu p^\mu}\right), \quad \quad E_p=\sqrt{p^2+m^2},$$ one finds the usual Hamiltonian $$\hat{\mathcal{H}} = \Pi \dot{\psi} + \Pi^* \dot{\psi^*} - \mathcal{L} = \int d^3p E_p \left( a^\dagger_p a_p+ b^\dagger_p b_p \right).$$

Suppose, however, I redefined my fields as $\psi = e^{-i\alpha t}\psi'$, where $\alpha$ is a constant, so that $$ S[\psi^*,\psi] = -\int dx^4 \left[\eta^{\mu\nu}(\partial_\mu + i \alpha \delta_{\mu t})\psi^*(\partial_\nu -i\alpha \delta_{\nu t}) \psi + m^2 \psi^* \psi \right] .$$ Notice this theory now looks CPT violating. Quantising this theory I find that $$\hat{\psi}'(x) = \hat{\psi}(x) e^{i\alpha t}, \quad \quad \Pi'(x) = \Pi(x) e^{-i\alpha t}, $$ and have found (apologies for skipping many steps here; it's the usual canonical quantisation procedure and would clutter the page. I will give more details if requested)

$$\hat{\mathcal{H}}' = \Pi' \dot{\psi'} + \Pi'^* \dot{\psi'^*} - \mathcal{L'}$$ $$ =\Pi \dot{\psi} + i \alpha \Pi \psi + \Pi^* \dot{\psi^*} - i\alpha \Pi^* \psi^* - \mathcal{L}$$ $$ = \hat{\mathcal{H}} + i \alpha( \Pi \psi -\Pi^* \psi^*)$$ $$ =\int d^3p \left[ (E_p-\alpha)a^\dagger_p a_p + (E_p+\alpha)b^\dagger_p b_p \right].$$

So the field redefinition has seemingly changed the energies of the 1-particle states.

1) Are the energies of the canonically quantised 1 particle states supposed to be field redefinition invariant? 2) If so, is there something wrong with the redefinition $\psi = e^{-i\alpha t}\psi'$ or have I missed an extra piece that arises from this redefinition?

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You could probably do the very same maneuver trivially in plain particle QM to shift the zero point of energies, whence the whole spectrum. The QFT transcription is overkill, no? $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 30, 2019 at 16:58
  • $\begingroup$ @CosmasZachos In regular QM I could indeed get a shift in energy but what that wouldn't capture is the asymmetric shift for particle vs antiparticle that I see above. $\endgroup$
    – Rudyard
    Commented Aug 31, 2019 at 17:28
  • $\begingroup$ Of course it would, if you looked at the particle Dirac equation, but if you believe there is any depth in QFT, I wouldn't rush to stand in the way of your appreciation... $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 31, 2019 at 18:20
  • $\begingroup$ Apologies, you are correct. What one finds in that case, subbing $e^{i x_\mu p^\mu}$ into the Dirac equation, after redefining, is of course $p^0 = -\alpha \pm E_p$. I guess one has to reinterpret $-p^0$ as the energy in the antiparticle case. In QFT I just compute the Hamiltonian and find positive energies (assuming $\alpha<m$) $\endgroup$
    – Rudyard
    Commented Aug 31, 2019 at 19:10

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

This is a very interesting question. Think about this: what happens if you add an electric potential to the original field (by minimal coupling)? You will see the same result! $\alpha$ in your expression can be actually regarded as $q\phi$.

This is like, say, we have a charge of $-3q$ somewhere in space and $2q$ at some other place. If we choose the uniform (trivial) electric potential to be $0$ then the energy of this configuration is just $0$. But is we set the potential all over the space to be $\phi_0$ then the energy would be $-3q\phi_0+2q\phi_0=-q\phi_0$.

The point is, there is nothing wrong with your calculation. What you did is actually a local gauge transformation. The original action obviously possesses a global $U(1)$ symmetry (invariant under $\psi\mapsto e^{i\theta}\psi$, where $\theta$ is independent both in space and time). But if we further require this symmetry to be local, that is, let $\theta$ depend on space time, we need some other terms to cancel terms like $\partial_\mu\theta$. In your case, $\theta(x,t)=-\alpha t$ and we are left with some additional term $\partial_t\theta=-\alpha$ to be canceled. This step is so-called gauging the global U(1) symmetry, and that's how we get electromagnetism interaction in QED. Redefinition of fields is fine but at the same time you should allow your Hamiltonian differing for a gauge transformation.

To make the theory invariant under $\psi\mapsto e^{i\theta(x,t)}\psi$, we will need other terms in the Lagrangian. The terms can be written is a compact form: $$ \begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{L}&=&-(\partial_\mu+iA_\mu)\psi^*(\partial^\mu+iA^\mu)\psi-m^2\psi^*\psi\\ &=&-D_\mu\psi^*D^\mu\psi-m^2\psi^*\psi, \end{eqnarray} $$ and $\psi, A_\mu$ change simultaneously as $$ \psi\mapsto e^{i\theta(x,t)}\psi\\ A_\mu\mapsto A_\mu + \partial_\mu\theta. $$

And in your case, $\theta=-\alpha t$, you see $A_0$ exactly cancels with the additional term you got.

For more details, take a look at

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ But physics is supposed to be invariant under gauge transformations. Or, in my case (where I really don't have a gauge field), under (gauged) field redefinitions. I would have thought that 1-particle state energies were one of those invariant quantities, is this not so? Incidentally, isn't there something about proper gauge transformations needing $\theta(x,t)$ to asymptote to a constant at infinity? $\endgroup$
    – Rudyard
    Commented Aug 30, 2019 at 23:02
  • $\begingroup$ Well the physics is indeed gauge invariant. But the physical observable quantity is the energy difference but not energy value. So the Hamiltonian is allowed to be changed under gauge transformation. Recall that the Lagrangian is actually allowed to be added a total time derivative term $d\lambda /dt$. That term changes the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian but do not change the physics. Also, I don't think there is an asymptotic constrain on $\theta$. $\endgroup$
    – Prongs
    Commented Aug 30, 2019 at 23:49
  • $\begingroup$ The energy difference between 1 particle states of momentum $p_1$ and $p_2$ indeed seem to stay the same. However, as the energy shift is asymmetrical, the energy difference between a 1 particle state of momentum $p$ and a 1 antiparticle state of momentum $p$ goes from zero to $2c$. $\endgroup$
    – Rudyard
    Commented Aug 31, 2019 at 8:27
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding asymptotic constraints on $\theta$, I'm not sure, but I think it might go something like this. A pure guage transformation is a redundancy of the description, it does not transform physical states to other distinct physical states. This type has $\theta \rightarrow 0$ at infinity (where the physical states are defined). A 'large' gauge transformation instead asymptotes to a global transformation at infinity, and therefore really moves states around. I am by no means knowledgeable on these matters and what I said could be partially wrong, but I'm just saying there are subtleties. $\endgroup$
    – Rudyard
    Commented Aug 31, 2019 at 8:40

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.