Does the Heisenberg equation for fields and canonical momentums hold as well for the hamiltonian density...
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
In quantum field theory, with the field $phi$ and the momentum $pi$ being operators, their time evolution is governed (in the Heisenberg-picture) by the Heisenberg equation:
begin{align}
dot{phi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{H}, phi] \
dot{pi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{H}, pi]. \
end{align}
Now, in case the Hamiltonian operator $hat{H}=int d^3x ~hat{cal H}$ can be written as an integral over the hamiltonian density $hat{cal H}$, and the fields and the momenta commute at non-equal positions, do the same equations hold as well with the Hamiltonian operator being replaced by it's density? What would the caveats be?
begin{align}
dot{phi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{cal H}, phi] \
dot{pi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{cal H}, pi]. \
end{align}
quantum-field-theory field-theory hamiltonian-formalism commutator poisson-brackets
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
In quantum field theory, with the field $phi$ and the momentum $pi$ being operators, their time evolution is governed (in the Heisenberg-picture) by the Heisenberg equation:
begin{align}
dot{phi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{H}, phi] \
dot{pi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{H}, pi]. \
end{align}
Now, in case the Hamiltonian operator $hat{H}=int d^3x ~hat{cal H}$ can be written as an integral over the hamiltonian density $hat{cal H}$, and the fields and the momenta commute at non-equal positions, do the same equations hold as well with the Hamiltonian operator being replaced by it's density? What would the caveats be?
begin{align}
dot{phi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{cal H}, phi] \
dot{pi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{cal H}, pi]. \
end{align}
quantum-field-theory field-theory hamiltonian-formalism commutator poisson-brackets
1
related: Field theory: equivalence between Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulation.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
Nov 27 at 17:20
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
In quantum field theory, with the field $phi$ and the momentum $pi$ being operators, their time evolution is governed (in the Heisenberg-picture) by the Heisenberg equation:
begin{align}
dot{phi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{H}, phi] \
dot{pi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{H}, pi]. \
end{align}
Now, in case the Hamiltonian operator $hat{H}=int d^3x ~hat{cal H}$ can be written as an integral over the hamiltonian density $hat{cal H}$, and the fields and the momenta commute at non-equal positions, do the same equations hold as well with the Hamiltonian operator being replaced by it's density? What would the caveats be?
begin{align}
dot{phi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{cal H}, phi] \
dot{pi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{cal H}, pi]. \
end{align}
quantum-field-theory field-theory hamiltonian-formalism commutator poisson-brackets
In quantum field theory, with the field $phi$ and the momentum $pi$ being operators, their time evolution is governed (in the Heisenberg-picture) by the Heisenberg equation:
begin{align}
dot{phi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{H}, phi] \
dot{pi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{H}, pi]. \
end{align}
Now, in case the Hamiltonian operator $hat{H}=int d^3x ~hat{cal H}$ can be written as an integral over the hamiltonian density $hat{cal H}$, and the fields and the momenta commute at non-equal positions, do the same equations hold as well with the Hamiltonian operator being replaced by it's density? What would the caveats be?
begin{align}
dot{phi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{cal H}, phi] \
dot{pi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{cal H}, pi]. \
end{align}
quantum-field-theory field-theory hamiltonian-formalism commutator poisson-brackets
quantum-field-theory field-theory hamiltonian-formalism commutator poisson-brackets
edited Nov 27 at 14:17
Qmechanic♦
100k121791123
100k121791123
asked Nov 27 at 12:55
Quantumwhisp
2,672623
2,672623
1
related: Field theory: equivalence between Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulation.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
Nov 27 at 17:20
add a comment |
1
related: Field theory: equivalence between Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulation.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
Nov 27 at 17:20
1
1
related: Field theory: equivalence between Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulation.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
Nov 27 at 17:20
related: Field theory: equivalence between Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulation.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
Nov 27 at 17:20
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
The answer is No. For starters for dimensional reasons. A density carries dimension $L^{-3}$.
In the classical (as opposed to the quantum) case, it is tempting to (at least partially) incorporate OP's suggestion for functionals
$$ F~=~int ! d^3x~f(x), qquad G~=~int ! d^3x~g(x), tag{1} $$
by changing the definition from the standard field-theoretic canonical Poisson bracket
$${ F, G} ~:=~int_V ! d^3x ~left(frac{delta F}{delta phi (x)}frac{delta G}{delta pi (x)}-frac{delta F}{delta pi (x)}frac{delta G}{delta phi (x)} right)
~=~int_V ! d^3x ~{!{ f(x),g(x)}!} tag{2}$$
to a same-$x$ Poisson bracket
$$ {!{ f(x),g(x)}!} ~:=~frac{delta f(x)}{delta phi (x)}frac{delta g(x)}{delta pi (x)}-frac{delta f(x)}{delta pi (x)}frac{delta g(x)}{delta phi (x)}, tag{3} $$
where $delta f(x)/delta phi (x)$ denote a same-spacetime functional derivative, see e.g. my Phys.SE answer here. In other words, the non-zero fundamental Poisson brackets read
$${ phi(x),pi(y) } ~=~delta^3(x!-!y)qquadtext{and}qquad
{!{ phi(x),pi(x) }!} ~=~1,tag{4}$$
i.e. the same-$x$ Poisson bracket (3) is defined without a Dirac delta distribution. However, in the $x$-local ${!{cdot,cdot}!}$ formalism (3) equality signs typically only hold modulo total spacetime derivative terms.
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
You have $hat{H} = int d^3x hat{tilde{H}}(x)$. That implies that canonical Relations will be slightly altered.
For a Quantum field Operator $hat{phi}(x',t)$ distributed over space $x'$ and time $t$, you will have a relation like the following:
$[hat{tilde{H}}(x),hat{phi}(x',t)] = frac {partial}{partial t} hat{phi(x',t)} delta(x-x')$.
The Delta function factor ensures not only the commutation of Operators for nonequal space Points; also that after Integration over space, the ordinary commutation Relations are obtained
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
The answer is No. For starters for dimensional reasons. A density carries dimension $L^{-3}$.
In the classical (as opposed to the quantum) case, it is tempting to (at least partially) incorporate OP's suggestion for functionals
$$ F~=~int ! d^3x~f(x), qquad G~=~int ! d^3x~g(x), tag{1} $$
by changing the definition from the standard field-theoretic canonical Poisson bracket
$${ F, G} ~:=~int_V ! d^3x ~left(frac{delta F}{delta phi (x)}frac{delta G}{delta pi (x)}-frac{delta F}{delta pi (x)}frac{delta G}{delta phi (x)} right)
~=~int_V ! d^3x ~{!{ f(x),g(x)}!} tag{2}$$
to a same-$x$ Poisson bracket
$$ {!{ f(x),g(x)}!} ~:=~frac{delta f(x)}{delta phi (x)}frac{delta g(x)}{delta pi (x)}-frac{delta f(x)}{delta pi (x)}frac{delta g(x)}{delta phi (x)}, tag{3} $$
where $delta f(x)/delta phi (x)$ denote a same-spacetime functional derivative, see e.g. my Phys.SE answer here. In other words, the non-zero fundamental Poisson brackets read
$${ phi(x),pi(y) } ~=~delta^3(x!-!y)qquadtext{and}qquad
{!{ phi(x),pi(x) }!} ~=~1,tag{4}$$
i.e. the same-$x$ Poisson bracket (3) is defined without a Dirac delta distribution. However, in the $x$-local ${!{cdot,cdot}!}$ formalism (3) equality signs typically only hold modulo total spacetime derivative terms.
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
The answer is No. For starters for dimensional reasons. A density carries dimension $L^{-3}$.
In the classical (as opposed to the quantum) case, it is tempting to (at least partially) incorporate OP's suggestion for functionals
$$ F~=~int ! d^3x~f(x), qquad G~=~int ! d^3x~g(x), tag{1} $$
by changing the definition from the standard field-theoretic canonical Poisson bracket
$${ F, G} ~:=~int_V ! d^3x ~left(frac{delta F}{delta phi (x)}frac{delta G}{delta pi (x)}-frac{delta F}{delta pi (x)}frac{delta G}{delta phi (x)} right)
~=~int_V ! d^3x ~{!{ f(x),g(x)}!} tag{2}$$
to a same-$x$ Poisson bracket
$$ {!{ f(x),g(x)}!} ~:=~frac{delta f(x)}{delta phi (x)}frac{delta g(x)}{delta pi (x)}-frac{delta f(x)}{delta pi (x)}frac{delta g(x)}{delta phi (x)}, tag{3} $$
where $delta f(x)/delta phi (x)$ denote a same-spacetime functional derivative, see e.g. my Phys.SE answer here. In other words, the non-zero fundamental Poisson brackets read
$${ phi(x),pi(y) } ~=~delta^3(x!-!y)qquadtext{and}qquad
{!{ phi(x),pi(x) }!} ~=~1,tag{4}$$
i.e. the same-$x$ Poisson bracket (3) is defined without a Dirac delta distribution. However, in the $x$-local ${!{cdot,cdot}!}$ formalism (3) equality signs typically only hold modulo total spacetime derivative terms.
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
The answer is No. For starters for dimensional reasons. A density carries dimension $L^{-3}$.
In the classical (as opposed to the quantum) case, it is tempting to (at least partially) incorporate OP's suggestion for functionals
$$ F~=~int ! d^3x~f(x), qquad G~=~int ! d^3x~g(x), tag{1} $$
by changing the definition from the standard field-theoretic canonical Poisson bracket
$${ F, G} ~:=~int_V ! d^3x ~left(frac{delta F}{delta phi (x)}frac{delta G}{delta pi (x)}-frac{delta F}{delta pi (x)}frac{delta G}{delta phi (x)} right)
~=~int_V ! d^3x ~{!{ f(x),g(x)}!} tag{2}$$
to a same-$x$ Poisson bracket
$$ {!{ f(x),g(x)}!} ~:=~frac{delta f(x)}{delta phi (x)}frac{delta g(x)}{delta pi (x)}-frac{delta f(x)}{delta pi (x)}frac{delta g(x)}{delta phi (x)}, tag{3} $$
where $delta f(x)/delta phi (x)$ denote a same-spacetime functional derivative, see e.g. my Phys.SE answer here. In other words, the non-zero fundamental Poisson brackets read
$${ phi(x),pi(y) } ~=~delta^3(x!-!y)qquadtext{and}qquad
{!{ phi(x),pi(x) }!} ~=~1,tag{4}$$
i.e. the same-$x$ Poisson bracket (3) is defined without a Dirac delta distribution. However, in the $x$-local ${!{cdot,cdot}!}$ formalism (3) equality signs typically only hold modulo total spacetime derivative terms.
The answer is No. For starters for dimensional reasons. A density carries dimension $L^{-3}$.
In the classical (as opposed to the quantum) case, it is tempting to (at least partially) incorporate OP's suggestion for functionals
$$ F~=~int ! d^3x~f(x), qquad G~=~int ! d^3x~g(x), tag{1} $$
by changing the definition from the standard field-theoretic canonical Poisson bracket
$${ F, G} ~:=~int_V ! d^3x ~left(frac{delta F}{delta phi (x)}frac{delta G}{delta pi (x)}-frac{delta F}{delta pi (x)}frac{delta G}{delta phi (x)} right)
~=~int_V ! d^3x ~{!{ f(x),g(x)}!} tag{2}$$
to a same-$x$ Poisson bracket
$$ {!{ f(x),g(x)}!} ~:=~frac{delta f(x)}{delta phi (x)}frac{delta g(x)}{delta pi (x)}-frac{delta f(x)}{delta pi (x)}frac{delta g(x)}{delta phi (x)}, tag{3} $$
where $delta f(x)/delta phi (x)$ denote a same-spacetime functional derivative, see e.g. my Phys.SE answer here. In other words, the non-zero fundamental Poisson brackets read
$${ phi(x),pi(y) } ~=~delta^3(x!-!y)qquadtext{and}qquad
{!{ phi(x),pi(x) }!} ~=~1,tag{4}$$
i.e. the same-$x$ Poisson bracket (3) is defined without a Dirac delta distribution. However, in the $x$-local ${!{cdot,cdot}!}$ formalism (3) equality signs typically only hold modulo total spacetime derivative terms.
edited 2 days ago
answered Nov 27 at 13:12
Qmechanic♦
100k121791123
100k121791123
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
You have $hat{H} = int d^3x hat{tilde{H}}(x)$. That implies that canonical Relations will be slightly altered.
For a Quantum field Operator $hat{phi}(x',t)$ distributed over space $x'$ and time $t$, you will have a relation like the following:
$[hat{tilde{H}}(x),hat{phi}(x',t)] = frac {partial}{partial t} hat{phi(x',t)} delta(x-x')$.
The Delta function factor ensures not only the commutation of Operators for nonequal space Points; also that after Integration over space, the ordinary commutation Relations are obtained
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
You have $hat{H} = int d^3x hat{tilde{H}}(x)$. That implies that canonical Relations will be slightly altered.
For a Quantum field Operator $hat{phi}(x',t)$ distributed over space $x'$ and time $t$, you will have a relation like the following:
$[hat{tilde{H}}(x),hat{phi}(x',t)] = frac {partial}{partial t} hat{phi(x',t)} delta(x-x')$.
The Delta function factor ensures not only the commutation of Operators for nonequal space Points; also that after Integration over space, the ordinary commutation Relations are obtained
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
You have $hat{H} = int d^3x hat{tilde{H}}(x)$. That implies that canonical Relations will be slightly altered.
For a Quantum field Operator $hat{phi}(x',t)$ distributed over space $x'$ and time $t$, you will have a relation like the following:
$[hat{tilde{H}}(x),hat{phi}(x',t)] = frac {partial}{partial t} hat{phi(x',t)} delta(x-x')$.
The Delta function factor ensures not only the commutation of Operators for nonequal space Points; also that after Integration over space, the ordinary commutation Relations are obtained
You have $hat{H} = int d^3x hat{tilde{H}}(x)$. That implies that canonical Relations will be slightly altered.
For a Quantum field Operator $hat{phi}(x',t)$ distributed over space $x'$ and time $t$, you will have a relation like the following:
$[hat{tilde{H}}(x),hat{phi}(x',t)] = frac {partial}{partial t} hat{phi(x',t)} delta(x-x')$.
The Delta function factor ensures not only the commutation of Operators for nonequal space Points; also that after Integration over space, the ordinary commutation Relations are obtained
answered Nov 27 at 13:07
kryomaxim
1,572620
1,572620
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f443607%2fdoes-the-heisenberg-equation-for-fields-and-canonical-momentums-hold-as-well-for%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
related: Field theory: equivalence between Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulation.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
Nov 27 at 17:20