DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix: the Interaction Picture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix: the Interaction Picture Appendix: The Interaction Picture The technique of expressing operators and quantum states in the so-called interaction picture is of great importance in treating quantum-mechanical problems in a perturbative fashion. It plays an important role, for example, in the derivation of the Born–Markov master equation for decoherence detailed in Sect. 4.2.2. We shall review the basics of the interaction-picture approach in the following. We begin by considering a Hamiltonian of the form Hˆ = Hˆ0 + V.ˆ (A.1) Here Hˆ0 denotes the part of the Hamiltonian that describes the free (un- perturbed) evolution of a system S, whereas Vˆ is some added external per- turbation. In applications of the interaction-picture formalism, Vˆ is typically assumed to be weak in comparison with Hˆ0, and the idea is then to deter- mine the approximate dynamics of the system given this assumption. In the following, however, we shall proceed with exact calculations only and make no assumption about the relative strengths of the two components Hˆ0 and Vˆ . From standard quantum theory, we know that the expectation value of an operator observable Aˆ(t) is given by the trace rule [see (2.17)], & ' & ' ˆ ˆ Aˆ(t) =Tr Aˆ(t)ˆρ(t) =Tr Aˆ(t)e−iHtρˆ(0)eiHt . (A.2) For reasons that will immediately become obvious, let us rewrite this expres- sion as & ' ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ Aˆ(t) =Tr eiH0tAˆ(t)e−iH0t eiH0te−iHtρˆ(0)eiHte−iH0t . (A.3) ˆ In inserting the time-evolution operators e±iH0t at the beginning and the end of the expression in square brackets, we have made use of the fact that the trace is cyclic under permutations of the arguments, i.e., that Tr AˆBˆCˆ ··· =Tr BˆCˆ ···Aˆ , etc. Thus we could move the first factor ˆ eiH0t to the end of the argument of the trace, canceling out the extra factor ˆ e−iH0t at that position. 380 Appendix: The Interaction Picture Equation (A.3) motivates us to now introduce the interaction-picture form of general operators Aˆ(t) and density matricesρ ˆ(t)as ˆ ˆ Aˆ(I)(t)=eiH0tAˆ(t)e−iH0t, (A.4) ˆ ˆ ρˆ(I)(t)=eiH0tρˆ(t)e−iH0t ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ =eiH0te−iHtρˆ(0)eiHte−iH0t. (A.5) Here the superscript (I) is used to denote interaction-picture operators. Note that the dynamics of the interaction-picture operators Aˆ(I)(t) are fully de- termined by the unperturbed (free) Hamiltonian Hˆ0 rather than by the total Hamiltonian Hˆ . With the new definitions (A.4) and (A.5), our expectation-value equa- tion (A.3) can then be written in the compact form & ' Aˆ(t) =Tr Aˆ(I)(t)ˆρ(I)(t) . (A.6) Let us now determine an evolution equation for the interaction-picture den- sity matrixρ ˆ(I)(t). Using the standard Liouville–von Neumann equation for the density matrixρ ˆ(t) in the Schr¨odinger picture, d ρˆ(t)=−i H,ˆ ρˆ(t) , (A.7) dt we obtain ˆ ˆ d (I) (I) iH0t d −iH0t ρˆ (t)=iHˆ0, ρˆ (t) +e ρˆ(t) e dt dt (A.7) ˆ ˆ (I) iH0t −iH0t =iHˆ0, ρˆ (t) − ie H,ˆ ρˆ(t) e (A.1) ˆ ˆ (I) iH0t −iH0t =iHˆ0, ρˆ (t) − ie Hˆ0 + V,ˆ ρˆ(t) e . (A.8) From (A.4) and (A.5) we see that the application of the time-evolution opera- ˆ tors e±iH0t to the quantities in the second commutator amounts to a transfor- mation of these quantities to the interaction picture. Equation (A.8) therefore becomes d (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) ρˆ (t)=i Hˆ0, ρˆ (t) − i Hˆ0, ρˆ (t) − i Vˆ (t), ρˆ (t) dt = −i Vˆ (I)(t), ρˆ(I)(t) . (A.9) This establishes our first main result: The time evolution of the interaction- picture density operator is given by an equation of the Liouville–von Neu- mann type, but with the interaction-picture perturbation Vˆ (I)(t) instead of the full Hamiltonian Hˆ . Appropriately, (A.9) is called the interaction-picture Liouville–von Neumann equation. Appendix: The Interaction Picture 381 Up to now, we have considered the case of a single system S subject to some perturbation Vˆ whose origin we have not specified further. Let us now enter the setting relevant to decoherence: We suppose that the perturbation is due to the interaction with some external environment E described by an in- teraction Hamiltonian Hˆint, i.e., Vˆ ≡ Hˆint. If we denote the self-Hamiltonians of the system and the environment by HˆS and HˆE , respectively, we may write the total Hamiltonian of the composite system SE in the form ˆ ˆ ˆ ≡ ˆ ˆ ˆ H = H0 + V /HS 01+ HE2 + /H01int2 . (A.10) ˆ ˆ ≡H0 ≡V Following the usual strategy, we are interested in determining the time evo- lution of the reduced density operatorρ ˆS (t). In our case, we would like to obtain the reduced interaction-picture density operator & ' (I) (I) ρˆS (t) ≡ TrE ρˆ (t) . (A.11) We will now address the following two questions: 1. Given the reduced density operatorρ ˆS (t) in the Schr¨odinger picture, what (I) is the corresponding operatorρ ˆS (t) in the interaction picture? (I) 2. What is the appropriate time-evolution equation forρ ˆS (t)? Let us answer the first question. Evaluating the trace in (A.11) gives & ' & ' (A.5) ˆ ˆ (I) iH0t −iH0t TrE ρˆ (t) =TrE e ρˆ(t)e $ & '% (A.10) ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ iHS t iHE t −iHE t −iHS t =e TrE e ρˆ(t)e e ˆ ˆ iHS t −iHS t =e {TrE [ˆρ(t)]} e ˆ ˆ iHS t −iHS t =e ρˆS (t)e (A.11) (I) ≡ ρˆS (t), (A.12) where in the second-to-last line we have again used the invariance of the trace operation under cyclic permutations of the arguments (or, put slightly differently, the invariance of the trace under unitary transformations of the argument). Equation (A.12) shows that the reduced density operator in the interac- tion picture is obtained by a unitary transformation of the reduced density operator in the Schr¨odinger picture involving the free system Hamiltonian HˆS only, i.e., ˆ ˆ (I) iHS t −iHS t ρˆS (t)=e ρˆS (t)e . (A.13) The analogy of (A.13) to the corresponding transformation for the total interaction-picture density operatorρ ˆ(I)(t), see (A.5), should now be clear. In 382 Appendix: The Interaction Picture each case, the transformation involves only the free Hamiltonian, namely, the (I) Hamiltonian Hˆ0 forρ ˆ (t) and the system Hamiltonian HˆS for the reduced (I) interaction-picture density operatorρ ˆS (t). We note that the definition (A.13) also ensures, as desired, that expec- tation values of system observables AˆS (t) automatically agree in both the Schr¨odinger and interaction pictures, i.e., that & ' & ' (I) (I) AˆS (t) =TrS ρˆS (t)AˆS (t) =TrS ρˆS (t)AˆS (t) , (A.14) where (A.4) ˆ ˆ (A.10) ˆ ˆ (I) iH0t −iH0t iHS t −iHS t AˆS (t) =e AˆS (t)e =e AˆS (t)e . (A.15) The proof of (A.14) is immediate: & ' & ' ˆ ˆ (I) (I) iHS t −iHS t TrS ρˆS (t)AˆS (t) =TrS e ρˆS (t)AˆS (t)e & ' =TrS ρˆS (t)AˆS (t) . (A.16) Finally, let us now answer the second question posed above, i.e., let us find an equation of motion for the reduced interaction-picture density operator (I) ρˆS (t). Taking the trace over the environment on both sides of our evolution equation (A.9) for the full interaction-picture density operatorρ ˆ(I)(t), with (I) (I) Vˆ (t) ≡ Hˆint (t), yields d (I) (I) (I) ρˆ (t)=−iTrE Hˆ (t), ρˆ (t) . (A.17) dt S int A closer inspection reveals that this equation is not of the standard Liouville– von Neumann form, since the right-hand side depends on the full density (I) (I) operatorρ ˆ (t) rather than on the reduced density operatorρ ˆS (t). This fact should not be too surprising to the reader. After all, the state of the environment will generally influence the evolution of the reduced density operator. Thus, in general, we must consider the full interacting system–environment combination to determine the reduced dynamics. (This observation is, of course, independent of whether we work in the Schr¨odinger or the interac- tion picture.) Only once certain approximations are imposed (for instance, the assumption of weak system–environment coupling), we may obtain an evolu- tion equation for the reduced density operator of the system that does not explicitly depend on the time-dependent total (system–environment) density operator. Such master equations are derived in Chaps. 4 and 5. References 1. M. Schlosshauer, Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 1267–1305 (2004). 2. E. Schr¨odinger, Die gegenw¨artige Situation in der Quantenmechanik, Natur- wissenschaften 23, 807–812, 823–828, 844–849 (1935). 3. A. Pais, Einstein and the quantum theory, Rev. Mod. Phys. 51, 863–914 (1979). 4. H. D. Zeh, On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory, Found. Phys. 1, 69–76 (1970). 5. H. D. Zeh, Toward a quantum theory of observation, Found. Phys. 3, 109–116 (1973). 6. O. K¨ubler, H. D. Zeh, Dynamics of quantum correlations, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 76, 405–418 (1973). 7. E. Joos, H. D. Zeh, The emergence of classical properties through interaction with the environment, Z. Phys. B: Condens.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory
    AN INTRODUCTION TO QUANTUM FIELD THEORY By Dr M Dasgupta University of Manchester Lecture presented at the School for Experimental High Energy Physics Students Somerville College, Oxford, September 2009 - 1 - - 2 - Contents 0 Prologue....................................................................................................... 5 1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 6 1.1 Lagrangian formalism in classical mechanics......................................... 6 1.2 Quantum mechanics................................................................................... 8 1.3 The Schrödinger picture........................................................................... 10 1.4 The Heisenberg picture............................................................................ 11 1.5 The quantum mechanical harmonic oscillator ..................................... 12 Problems .............................................................................................................. 13 2 Classical Field Theory............................................................................. 14 2.1 From N-point mechanics to field theory ............................................... 14 2.2 Relativistic field theory ............................................................................ 15 2.3 Action for a scalar field ............................................................................ 15 2.4 Plane wave solution to the Klein-Gordon equation ...........................
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Theory Cannot Consistently Describe the Use of Itself
    ARTICLE DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-05739-8 OPEN Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself Daniela Frauchiger1 & Renato Renner1 Quantum theory provides an extremely accurate description of fundamental processes in physics. It thus seems likely that the theory is applicable beyond the, mostly microscopic, domain in which it has been tested experimentally. Here, we propose a Gedankenexperiment 1234567890():,; to investigate the question whether quantum theory can, in principle, have universal validity. The idea is that, if the answer was yes, it must be possible to employ quantum theory to model complex systems that include agents who are themselves using quantum theory. Analysing the experiment under this presumption, we find that one agent, upon observing a particular measurement outcome, must conclude that another agent has predicted the opposite outcome with certainty. The agents’ conclusions, although all derived within quantum theory, are thus inconsistent. This indicates that quantum theory cannot be extrapolated to complex systems, at least not in a straightforward manner. 1 Institute for Theoretical Physics, ETH Zurich, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to R.R. (email: [email protected]) NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2018) 9:3711 | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-05739-8 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 1 ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-05739-8 “ 1”〉 “ 1”〉 irect experimental tests of quantum theory are mostly Here, | z ¼À2 D and | z ¼þ2 D denote states of D depending restricted to microscopic domains. Nevertheless, quantum on the measurement outcome z shown by the devices within the D “ψ ”〉 “ψ ”〉 theory is commonly regarded as being (almost) uni- lab.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Field Theory II
    Quantum Field Theory II T. Nguyen PHY 391 Independent Study Term Paper Prof. S.G. Rajeev University of Rochester April 20, 2018 1 Introduction The purpose of this independent study is to familiarize ourselves with the fundamental concepts of quantum field theory. In this paper, I discuss how the theory incorporates the interactions between quantum systems. With the success of the free Klein-Gordon field theory, ultimately we want to introduce the field interactions into our picture. Any interaction will modify the Klein-Gordon equation and thus its Lagrange density. Consider, for example, when the field interacts with an external source J(x). The Klein-Gordon equation and its Lagrange density are µ 2 (@µ@ + m )φ(x) = J(x); 1 m2 L = @ φ∂µφ − φ2 + Jφ. 2 µ 2 In a relativistic quantum field theory, we want to describe the self-interaction of the field and the interaction with other dynamical fields. This paper is based on my lecture for the Kapitza Society. The second section will discuss the concept of symmetry and conservation. The third section will discuss the self-interacting φ4 theory. Lastly, in the fourth section, I will briefly introduce the interaction (Dirac) picture and solve for the time evolution operator. 2 Noether's Theorem 2.1 Symmetries and Conservation Laws In 1918, the mathematician Emmy Noether published what is now known as the first Noether's Theorem. The theorem informally states that for every continuous symmetry there exists a corresponding conservation law. For example, the conservation of energy is a result of a time symmetry, the conservation of linear momentum is a result of a plane symmetry, and the conservation of angular momentum is a result of a spherical symmetry.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Violation of Classical Physics in Macroscopic Systems
    Quantum VIOLATION OF CLASSICAL PHYSICS IN MACROSCOPIC SYSTEMS Lucas Clemente Ludwig Maximilian University OF Munich Max Planck INSTITUTE OF Quantum Optics Quantum VIOLATION OF CLASSICAL PHYSICS IN MACROSCOPIC SYSTEMS Lucas Clemente Dissertation AN DER Fakultät für Physik DER Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München VORGELEGT VON Lucas Clemente AUS München München, IM NoVEMBER 2015 TAG DER mündlichen Prüfung: 26. Januar 2016 Erstgutachter: Prof. J. IGNACIO Cirac, PhD Zweitgutachter: Prof. Dr. Jan VON Delft WEITERE Prüfungskommissionsmitglieder: Prof. Dr. HarALD Weinfurter, Prof. Dr. Armin Scrinzi Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away. “ — Philip K. Dick How To Build A Universe That Doesn’t Fall Apart Two Days Later, a speech published in the collection I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon Contents Abstract xi Zusammenfassung xiii List of publications xv Acknowledgments xvii 0 Introduction 1 0.1 History and motivation . 3 0.2 Local realism and Bell’s theorem . 5 0.3 Contents of this thesis . 10 1 Conditions for macrorealism 11 1.1 Macroscopic realism . 13 1.2 Macrorealism per se following from strong non-invasive measurability 15 1.3 The Leggett-Garg inequality . 17 1.4 No-signaling in time . 19 1.5 Necessary and sufficient conditions for macrorealism . 21 1.6 No-signaling in time for quantum measurements . 25 1.6.1 Without time evolution . 26 1.6.2 With time evolution . 27 1.7 Conclusion and outlook . 28 Appendix 31 1.A Proof that NSIT0(1)2 is sufficient for NIC0(1)2 . 31 2 Macroscopic classical dynamics from microscopic quantum behavior 33 2.1 Quantifying violations of classicality .
    [Show full text]
  • Particle Or Wave: There Is No Evidence of Single Photon Delayed Choice
    Particle or wave: there is no evidence of single photon delayed choice. Michael Devereux* Los Alamos National Laboratory (Retired) Abstract Wheeler supposed that the way in which a single photon is measured in the present could determine how it had behaved in the past. He named such retrocausation delayed choice. Over the last forty years many experimentalists have claimed to have observed single-photon delayed choice. Recently, however, researchers have proven that the quantum wavefunction of a single photon assumes the identical mathematical form of the solution to Maxwell’s equations for that photon. This efficacious understanding allows for a trenchant analysis of delayed-choice experiments and denies their retrocausation conclusions. It is now usual for physicists to employ Bohr’s wave-particle complementarity theory to distinguish wave from particle aspects in delayed- choice observations. Nevertheless, single-photon, delayed-choice experiments, provide no evidence that the photon actually acts like a particle, or, instead, like a wave, as a function of a future measurement. And, a recent, careful, Stern-Gerlach analysis has shown that the supposition of concurrent wave and particle characteristics in the Bohm-DeBroglie theory is not tenable. PACS 03.65.Ta, 03.65.Ud 03.67.-a, 42.50.Ar, 42.50.Xa 1. Introduction. Almost forty years ago Wheeler suggested that there exists a type of retrocausation, which he called delayed choice, in certain physical phenomena [1]. Specifically, he said that the past behavior of some quantum systems could be determined by how they are observed in the present. “The past”, he wrote, “has no existence except as it is recorded in the present” [2].
    [Show full text]
  • Interaction Representation
    Interaction Representation So far we have discussed two ways of handling time dependence. The most familiar is the Schr¨odingerrepresentation, where operators are constant, and states move in time. The Heisenberg representation does just the opposite; states are constant in time and operators move. The answer for any given physical quantity is of course independent of which is used. Here we discuss a third way of describing the time dependence, introduced by Dirac, known as the interaction representation, although it could equally well be called the Dirac representation. In this representation, both operators and states move in time. The interaction representation is particularly useful in problems involving time dependent external forces or potentials acting on a system. It also provides a route to the whole apparatus of quantum field theory and Feynman diagrams. This approach to field theory was pioneered by Dyson in the the 1950's. Here we will study the interaction representation in quantum mechanics, but develop the formalism in enough detail that the road to field theory can be followed. We consider an ordinary non-relativistic system where the Hamiltonian is broken up into two parts. It is almost always true that one of these two parts is going to be handled in perturbation theory, that is order by order. Writing our Hamiltonian we have H = H0 + V (1) Here H0 is the part of the Hamiltonian we have under control. It may not be particularly simple. For example it could be the full Hamiltonian of an atom or molecule. Neverthe- less, we assume we know all we need to know about the eigenstates of H0: The V term in H is the part we do not have control over.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Quantum Theory AMATH473/673, PHYS454
    Advanced Quantum Theory AMATH473/673, PHYS454 Achim Kempf Department of Applied Mathematics University of Waterloo Canada c Achim Kempf, September 2017 (Please do not copy: textbook in progress) 2 Contents 1 A brief history of quantum theory 9 1.1 The classical period . 9 1.2 Planck and the \Ultraviolet Catastrophe" . 9 1.3 Discovery of h ................................ 10 1.4 Mounting evidence for the fundamental importance of h . 11 1.5 The discovery of quantum theory . 11 1.6 Relativistic quantum mechanics . 13 1.7 Quantum field theory . 14 1.8 Beyond quantum field theory? . 16 1.9 Experiment and theory . 18 2 Classical mechanics in Hamiltonian form 21 2.1 Newton's laws for classical mechanics cannot be upgraded . 21 2.2 Levels of abstraction . 22 2.3 Classical mechanics in Hamiltonian formulation . 23 2.3.1 The energy function H contains all information . 23 2.3.2 The Poisson bracket . 25 2.3.3 The Hamilton equations . 27 2.3.4 Symmetries and Conservation laws . 29 2.3.5 A representation of the Poisson bracket . 31 2.4 Summary: The laws of classical mechanics . 32 2.5 Classical field theory . 33 3 Quantum mechanics in Hamiltonian form 35 3.1 Reconsidering the nature of observables . 36 3.2 The canonical commutation relations . 37 3.3 From the Hamiltonian to the equations of motion . 40 3.4 From the Hamiltonian to predictions of numbers . 44 3.4.1 Linear maps . 44 3.4.2 Choices of representation . 45 3.4.3 A matrix representation . 46 3 4 CONTENTS 3.4.4 Example: Solving the equations of motion for a free particle with matrix-valued functions .
    [Show full text]
  • The Path Integral Approach to Quantum Mechanics Lecture Notes for Quantum Mechanics IV
    The Path Integral approach to Quantum Mechanics Lecture Notes for Quantum Mechanics IV Riccardo Rattazzi May 25, 2009 2 Contents 1 The path integral formalism 5 1.1 Introducingthepathintegrals. 5 1.1.1 Thedoubleslitexperiment . 5 1.1.2 An intuitive approach to the path integral formalism . .. 6 1.1.3 Thepathintegralformulation. 8 1.1.4 From the Schr¨oedinger approach to the path integral . .. 12 1.2 Thepropertiesofthepathintegrals . 14 1.2.1 Pathintegralsandstateevolution . 14 1.2.2 The path integral computation for a free particle . 17 1.3 Pathintegralsasdeterminants . 19 1.3.1 Gaussianintegrals . 19 1.3.2 GaussianPathIntegrals . 20 1.3.3 O(ℏ) corrections to Gaussian approximation . 22 1.3.4 Quadratic lagrangians and the harmonic oscillator . .. 23 1.4 Operatormatrixelements . 27 1.4.1 Thetime-orderedproductofoperators . 27 2 Functional and Euclidean methods 31 2.1 Functionalmethod .......................... 31 2.2 EuclideanPathIntegral . 32 2.2.1 Statisticalmechanics. 34 2.3 Perturbationtheory . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 35 2.3.1 Euclidean n-pointcorrelators . 35 2.3.2 Thermal n-pointcorrelators. 36 2.3.3 Euclidean correlators by functional derivatives . ... 38 0 0 2.3.4 Computing KE[J] and Z [J] ................ 39 2.3.5 Free n-pointcorrelators . 41 2.3.6 The anharmonic oscillator and Feynman diagrams . 43 3 The semiclassical approximation 49 3.1 Thesemiclassicalpropagator . 50 3.1.1 VanVleck-Pauli-Morette formula . 54 3.1.2 MathematicalAppendix1 . 56 3.1.3 MathematicalAppendix2 . 56 3.2 Thefixedenergypropagator. 57 3.2.1 General properties of the fixed energy propagator . 57 3.2.2 Semiclassical computation of K(E)............. 61 3.2.3 Two applications: reflection and tunneling through a barrier 64 3 4 CONTENTS 3.2.4 On the phase of the prefactor of K(xf ,tf ; xi,ti) ....
    [Show full text]
  • Superconducting Transmon Machines
    Quantum Computing Hardware Platforms: Superconducting Transmon Machines • CSC591/ECE592 – Quantum Computing • Fall 2020 • Professor Patrick Dreher • Research Professor, Department of Computer Science • Chief Scientist, NC State IBM Q Hub 3 November 2020 Superconducting Transmon Quantum Computers 1 5 November 2020 Patrick Dreher Outline • Introduction – Digital versus Quantum Computation • Conceptual design for superconducting transmon QC hardware platforms • Construction of qubits with electronic circuits • Superconductivity • Josephson junction and nonlinear LC circuits • Transmon design with example IBM chip layout • Working with a superconducting transmon hardware platform • Quantum Mechanics of Two State Systems - Rabi oscillations • Performance characteristics of superconducting transmon hardware • Construct the basic CNOT gate • Entangled transmons and controlled gates • Appendices • References • Quantum mechanical solution of the 2 level system 3 November 2020 Superconducting Transmon Quantum Computers 2 5 November 2020 Patrick Dreher Digital Computation Hardware Platforms Based on a Base2 Mathematics • Design principle for a digital computer is built on base2 mathematics • Identify voltage changes in electrical circuits that map base2 math into a “zero” or “one” corresponding to an on/off state • Build electrical circuits from simple on/off states that apply these basic rules to construct digital computers 3 November 2020 Superconducting Transmon Quantum Computers 3 5 November 2020 Patrick Dreher From Previous Lectures It was
    [Show full text]
  • Pictures and Equations of Motion in Lagrangian Quantum Field Theory
    Pictures and equations of motion in Lagrangian quantum field theory Bozhidar Z. Iliev ∗ † ‡ Short title: Picture of motion in QFT Basic ideas: → May–June, 2001 Began: → May 12, 2001 Ended: → August 5, 2001 Initial typeset: → May 18 – August 8, 2001 Last update: → January 30, 2003 Produced: → February 1, 2008 http://www.arXiv.org e-Print archive No.: hep-th/0302002 • r TM BO•/ HO Subject Classes: Quantum field theory 2000 MSC numbers: 2001 PACS numbers: 81Q99, 81T99 03.70.+k, 11.10Ef, 11.90.+t, 12.90.+b Key-Words: Quantum field theory, Pictures of motion, Schr¨odinger picture Heisenberg picture, Interaction picture, Momentum picture Equations of motion, Euler-Lagrange equations in quantum field theory Heisenberg equations/relations in quantum field theory arXiv:hep-th/0302002v1 1 Feb 2003 Klein-Gordon equation ∗Laboratory of Mathematical Modeling in Physics, Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Boul. Tzarigradsko chauss´ee 72, 1784 Sofia, Bulgaria †E-mail address: [email protected] ‡URL: http://theo.inrne.bas.bg/∼bozho/ Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Heisenberg picture and description of interacting fields 3 3 Interaction picture. I. Covariant formulation 6 4 Interaction picture. II. Time-dependent formulation 13 5 Schr¨odinger picture 18 6 Links between different time-dependent pictures of motion 20 7 The momentum picture 24 8 Covariant pictures of motion 28 9 Conclusion 30 References 31 Thisarticleendsatpage. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 33 Abstract The Heisenberg, interaction, and Schr¨odinger pictures of motion are considered in La- grangian (canonical) quantum field theory. The equations of motion (for state vectors and field operators) are derived for arbitrary Lagrangians which are polynomial or convergent power series in field operators and their first derivatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Casimir-Polder Interaction in Second Quantization
    Universitat¨ Potsdam Institut fur¨ Physik und Astronomie Casimir-Polder interaction in second quantization Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades doctor rerum naturalium (Dr. rer. nat.) in der Wissen- schaftsdisziplin theoretische Physik. Eingereicht am 21. Marz¨ 2011 an der Mathematisch – Naturwissen- schaftlichen Fakultat¨ der Universitat¨ Potsdam von Jurgen¨ Schiefele Betreuer: PD Dr. Carsten Henkel This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License: Attribution - Noncommercial - Share Alike 3.0 Germany To view a copy of this license visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/de/ Published online at the Institutional Repository of the University of Potsdam: URL http://opus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2011/5417/ URN urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-54171 http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-54171 Abstract The Casimir-Polder interaction between a single neutral atom and a nearby surface, arising from the (quantum and thermal) fluctuations of the electromagnetic field, is a cornerstone of cavity quantum electrodynamics (cQED), and theoretically well established. Recently, Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) of ultracold atoms have been used to test the predic- tions of cQED. The purpose of the present thesis is to upgrade single-atom cQED with the many-body theory needed to describe trapped atomic BECs. Tools and methods are developed in a second-quantized picture that treats atom and photon fields on the same footing. We formulate a diagrammatic expansion using correlation functions for both the electromagnetic field and the atomic system. The formalism is applied to investigate, for BECs trapped near surfaces, dispersion interactions of the van der Waals-Casimir-Polder type, and the Bosonic stimulation in spontaneous decay of excited atomic states.
    [Show full text]
  • New Journal of Physics the Open–Access Journal for Physics
    New Journal of Physics The open–access journal for physics The rise and fall of redundancy in decoherence and quantum Darwinism C Jess Riedel1,2,5, Wojciech H Zurek1,3 and Michael Zwolak1,4 1 Theoretical Division/CNLS, LANL, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA 2 Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA 3 Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM 87501, USA 4 Department of Physics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA E-mail: [email protected] New Journal of Physics 14 (2012) 083010 (20pp) Received 9 March 2012 Published 10 August 2012 Online at http://www.njp.org/ doi:10.1088/1367-2630/14/8/083010 Abstract. A state selected at random from the Hilbert space of a many-body system is overwhelmingly likely to exhibit highly non-classical correlations. For these typical states, half of the environment must be measured by an observer to determine the state of a given subsystem. The objectivity of classical reality—the fact that multiple observers can agree on the state of a subsystem after measuring just a small fraction of its environment—implies that the correlations found in nature between macroscopic systems and their environments are exceptional. Building on previous studies of quantum Darwinism showing that highly redundant branching states are produced ubiquitously during pure decoherence, we examine the conditions needed for the creation of branching states and study their demise through many-body interactions. We show that even constrained dynamics can suppress redundancy to the values typical of random states on relaxation timescales, and prove that these results hold exactly in the thermodynamic limit.
    [Show full text]