Field Quantization: Confined in Cube or Whole Space?

  • Thread starter Thread starter zhangpujumbo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field Quantization
zhangpujumbo
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
I see in many textbooks that all authors start field quantization with EM field confined in a cube of finite size, certainly some B.C. is imposed, usually periodic B.C., finally the cube goes to whole space.

I have some questions on this procedure:
1, Is periodic(or other) B.C. reasonable? Doesn't the B.C. have any influence on final results?
2, Is this cube necessary? Why not just do the decomposition in the whole space(continuous decompostition spectrum encounterd?)?

I heared that this method of quantizing EM field was originally proposed by Dirac in his Lectures on Quantum Field Theory. Would anyone be kind enough to share it?

Thank you all for attention!:smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Periodic and box boundry conditions lead to discrete energies. They have been used in virtually all branches of physics, to simplify some of the problems associated with continuous spectra. You can find discussions of this in virtually any text on QM or QFT -- this trick goes back many, many years, before 1900, for many types of boundary value problems as well.

These days, working directly with the continuous spectra is more in vogue.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson.
 
Box quantization for the EM field simply is a nice way to get to the concept of "photon" by evading the headaches one gets when he tries to quantize a gauge classical field theory described in \mathbb{M}_{4}.

Daniel.
 
One obvious phenomenon where the boundary conditions do matter is the Casimir force.
 
Last edited:
Physics Monkey said:
One obvious phenomenon where the boundary conditions do matter is the Casimir force.

Then sometimes the boundary conditions do make a difference.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Back
Top