QFT & Bound States: Is Calculation Possible?

Ratzinger
Messages
291
Reaction score
0
I read somewhere that quantum field theory does not allow calculations and predictions of bound states in a satisfactory way. Is that true and how much is that a problem given that qft claims to be so fundamental?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As far as i know, QFT does a good job in some problems concerning bound states, e.g. the Lamb shift in light atoms, which has been calculated using QFT in Weinberg's book. But in bound states with strong interaction, as a bound state is a low energy state(~MeV), the strong interaction becomes so strong that perturbation theory breaks down in any sense. So we can't use common QFT method to calculate hadron mass, etc. But we do have some approaches to settle this problem, e.g. lattice QCD, but the solution is far from exact.
 
Last edited:
wangyi said:
But in bound states with strong interaction, as a bound state is a low energy state(~MeV), the strong interaction becomes so strong that perturbation theory breaks down in any sense. So we can't use common QFT method to calculate hardon mass, etc.

Well this problem is more general. The entire QCD field theory suffers from it.

But we do have some approaches to settle this problem, e.g. lattice QCD, but the solution is far from exact.

Lattice QCD ? You mean non perturbative QFT or infrared QCD, right ?

regards
marlon
 
I hear Lattice QCD can do some non perturbative calculations, for example, it can give hadron mass up to a few percent in most sence. In lattice QCD, we can begin with the Euclidean but entire action, take the action as a probable denisty of all field configurations, place space on lattice and do sampling according to the action.

It's my understanding. I hope it is helpful.

regards.
 
Last edited:
wangyi, I believe what you say is true. BTW the particle name you want is hadron, with the d coming before the the r. It is important to observe this silly detail because your original spelling has an embarassing slang meaning.
 
Sorry, My mother language is not English, but I will pay more attention on these details. Thank you for your correction.
 
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