I Prefactor in Canonical Quantization of Scalar Field

thatboi
Messages
130
Reaction score
20
Hey all,
I am encountering an issue reconciling the choice of prefactors in the canonical quantization of the scalar field between Srednicki and Peskin's books. In Peskin's book (see equation (2.47)), there is a prefactor of ##\frac{1}{\sqrt{2E_{p}}}## whereas in Srednicki's book (see equation (3.18) and (3.19)), there is a prefactor of ##\frac{1}{2\omega}##. What concerns me is that if we take the derivative with respect to time of the field, then in Peskin's case, we are left with a ##\sqrt{E_{p}}## factor whereas in Srednicki's book, the ##\frac{1}{\omega}## prefactor completely disappears, so I fail to see how these 2 definitions can be equivalent.
Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Compare also the commutators of creation/destruction operators, they should be different too, so that at the end the commutators between the field and its time derivative are the same.
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark, thatboi and malawi_glenn
Yes, different books uses different normalizations for the ##\hat a## and ##\hat a^\dagger##
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark, vanhees71, thatboi and 1 other person
Great, thanks a lot. My confusion initially came from when I was looking through Itzykson's QFT book and came upon this discussion on pg. 521:
1679847504828.png

Specifically, looking at how the scalar field is quantized in equation (11.39), it seems to me that if we used Peskin's definition of normalization, then the energy term wouldn't cancel out after we take the derivative with respect to time and thus we couldn't evaluate the integral in equation (11.41) right (since the energy term is also necessarily a function of the spatial coordinates of momentum).
 
It depends, at which place you want to have it convenient. If you want the creation and annihilation operators to create momentum eigenstates normalized to 1, you need the ##1/\sqrt{2 E_{\vec{p}}}## factors in the mode decomposition. If you want manifestly covariant integrals in the mode decomposition you need the ##1/(2 E_{\vec{p}})## factors. That's because ##\mathrm{d}^2 p/(2 E_{\vec{p}})## is mainfestly Lorentz invariant.

The correct factor of the field is of course always uniquely defined by the equal-time (anti-)commutator relations,
$$[\hat{\Phi}(t,\vec{x}),\hat{\Pi}(t,\vec{y})]=\mathrm{i} \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x}-\vec{y}).$$
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...
Thread 'Lesser Green's function'
The lesser Green's function is defined as: $$G^{<}(t,t')=i\langle C_{\nu}^{\dagger}(t')C_{\nu}(t)\rangle=i\bra{n}C_{\nu}^{\dagger}(t')C_{\nu}(t)\ket{n}$$ where ##\ket{n}## is the many particle ground state. $$G^{<}(t,t')=i\bra{n}e^{iHt'}C_{\nu}^{\dagger}(0)e^{-iHt'}e^{iHt}C_{\nu}(0)e^{-iHt}\ket{n}$$ First consider the case t <t' Define, $$\ket{\alpha}=e^{-iH(t'-t)}C_{\nu}(0)e^{-iHt}\ket{n}$$ $$\ket{\beta}=C_{\nu}(0)e^{-iHt'}\ket{n}$$ $$G^{<}(t,t')=i\bra{\beta}\ket{\alpha}$$ ##\ket{\alpha}##...
Back
Top