4

Srednicki writes: We can make this a little fancier by defining the unitary spacetime translation operator

$$ T(a) \equiv \exp(-iP^\mu a_\mu/ \hbar) $$

Then we have $$ T(a)^{-1} \phi(x) T(a) = \phi(x-a)$$

How do we get the second equation from the first equation?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
rainman
  • 2,983

2 Answers2

4

It is unnecessary to use Hilbert space states to formally derive this result; it quickly follows from a useful result about the matrix exponential (which comes in very handy when one studies Lie algebras which, incidentally, is essentially what we're looking at here).

Let $X$ be any $n$-by-$n$ complex matrix, then we define the linear operator $\mathrm{ad}_X$ on the vector space of such matrices by $$ \mathrm{ad}_X Y = [X,Y] $$ for all $n$-by-$n$ complex matrices $Y$. Here $[\cdot, \cdot]$ denotes the commutator often called the adjoint operator. Then we have the following result: $$ e^XYe^{-X} = e^{\mathrm{ad}_X}Y $$ Now, if we formally apply this result to linear operators on the Hilbert space of a quantum field theory, then we obtain $$ T(a)^{-1}\phi(x)T(a) = e^{ia_\mu P^\mu/\hbar}\phi(x)e^{-ia_\mu P^\mu/\hbar} = e^{\mathrm{ad}_{ia_\mu P^\mu/\hbar}}\phi(x) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{\mathrm{ad}^k_{ia_\mu P^\mu/\hbar}\phi(x)}{k!} $$ Now we use the fact that for any field $\Phi$, we have $$ \mathrm{ad}_{ia_\mu P^\mu/\hbar}\phi(x)=\frac{ia_\mu}{\hbar} [P^\mu, \phi(x)] = \frac{ia_\mu}{\hbar}(i\hbar \partial^\mu)\phi(x) = -a_\mu \partial^\mu\phi(x) $$ Applying this result $k$ times and inserting it into the series expansion for the exponential written above, we obtain $$ T(a)^{-1}\phi(x)T(a) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac{(-1)^k}{k!}(a_\mu\partial^\mu)^k\phi(x) $$ Now, we simply note that the right hand side is the Taylor expansion of $\phi(x-a)$. Explictly $$ \phi(x-a) = \phi(x) -a_\mu\partial^\mu\phi +\frac{1}{2}(a_\mu\partial^\mu)^2\phi(x) + \cdots + \frac{(-1)^k}{k!}(a_\mu\partial^\mu)^k\phi(x)+\cdots $$ and this gives the desired result.

joshphysics
  • 57,120
  • I am reading QFT from Srednicki's book. In the 2nd chapter of this book and in the spin half part of this book, group theory and group representation theory is used. Can you suggest me a book from where I can learn this? – rainman Jun 30 '13 at 12:44
  • 2
    I personally like Brian Hall's Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Representations – joshphysics Jun 30 '13 at 18:52
  • 1
    Thnaks a lot. I have benn waiting for your answer. Srednicki is killing me! – rainman Jun 30 '13 at 18:53
  • This might be helpful too for references http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6108/comprehensive-book-on-group-theory-for-physicists – joshphysics Jun 30 '13 at 18:58
  • 1
    I also like Group Theory in Physics by Wu-Ki Tung. – joshphysics Jun 30 '13 at 18:58
1

[EDIT] Supposing a state basis $|e_i\rangle $, we are going to use the following notation for a state: $|A(x)\rangle = \sum_i A_i(x)|e_i\rangle$

An operator $O$ appying on $A$ gives then: $O|A(x)\rangle = \sum_i OA_i(x)|e_i\rangle$

For instance, $\partial_{\mu}|A(x)\rangle = \sum\partial_{\mu}A_i(x)|e_i\rangle$

Now, instead of working with operators, I think it is simpler to work with states $\left|A(x)\right\rangle$ and $\left|B(x)\right\rangle$ such as:

$$\left|B(x)\right\rangle = \Phi(x) \left|A(x)\right\rangle \tag{1}$$

This is true, of course, for $x-a$, that is:

$$\left|B(x - a)\right\rangle = \Phi(x- a) \left|A(x-a)\right\rangle \tag{2}$$

We know that:

$$P_{\mu}\left|A(x)\right\rangle = i \hbar \partial_{\mu}\left|A(x)\right\rangle.$$

So, we get: \begin{align} T(a)^{-1}\left|A(x)\right\rangle &= e^{\large iP_\mu a^\mu/ \hbar}\left|A(x)\right\rangle\\ &=e^{\large -a^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}} \left|A(x)\right\rangle\\ &= \left|A(x - a)\right\rangle \end{align}

The last equality is simply the Taylor series of $\left|A(x - a)\right\rangle$ at $x$, that is:

$$\left|A(x - a)\right\rangle = \left|A(x)\right\rangle - a^{\mu}\partial_{\mu} \left|A(x)\right\rangle + \frac{1}{2!} (a^{\mu}\partial_{\mu})^2\left|A(x)\right\rangle +\frac{(-1)^n}{n!}(a^{\mu}\partial_{\mu})^n\left|A(x)\right\rangle + \dots.$$

Now, applying $T(a)^{-1}$ to equation $(1)$, we get:

$$T(a)^{-1}\left|B(x)\right\rangle =T(a)^{-1}\Phi (x)\left|A(x)\right\rangle.$$

That is:

$$T(a)^{-1}\left|B(x)\right\rangle =T(a)^{-1}\Phi (x)T(a)T(a)^{-1}\left|A(x)\right\rangle.$$

So, we get:

$$\left|B(x - a)\right\rangle =T(a)^{-1}\Phi (x)T(a)\left|A(x - a)\right\rangle.$$

Looking at equation $(2)$, we finally get:

$$T(a)^{-1}\Phi (x)T(a) = \Phi (x-a)$$

Trimok
  • 17,567
  • 1
    nooooooooo! twistor59 was trying to lead OP to this own solution :( – joshphysics Jun 29 '13 at 19:58
  • @Trimok: Thanks a lot. You have written:

    $ e^{-a.\partial} |A(x) \rangle$. Here what does $a.\partial$ mean?

    – rainman Jun 29 '13 at 20:00
  • @Ome: $a.\partial$ means $a^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}$. I made an edit in the answer. – Trimok Jun 29 '13 at 21:03
  • @Ome : Note that, with your convention $T(a) \equiv \exp(-iP_\mu a^\mu/ \hbar)$, I then use the convention $P_{\mu}\left|A(x)\right\rangle = i \hbar \partial_{\mu}\left|A(x)\right\rangle.$. But other conventions are $T(a) \equiv \exp(iP_\mu a^\mu/ \hbar)$ and $P_{\mu}\left|A(x)\right\rangle = -i \hbar \partial_{\mu}\left|A(x)\right\rangle.$. This does not change the final result. – Trimok Jun 29 '13 at 21:24
  • @Trimok What precisely is the definition of the state $|A(x)\rangle$ that you're using? In particular, what is the mathematical context of your first equation? – joshphysics Jun 30 '13 at 02:37
  • *mathematical content not context; excuse me. – joshphysics Jun 30 '13 at 02:49
  • @Trimok: Thank you very much. In the answer I see: $|A(x)\rangle$. I here want to know what it is exactly like and also want to know why you have put an $x$ in bracket after $A$ ? – rainman Jun 30 '13 at 12:20
  • @Ome : The important thing is to make the difference between the "wavefunctions" $A$ and $B$, and the operator $\Phi(x)$. $\Phi(x)$ is not a state, it is not a wavefunction, it is an operator which apply on states (like $P_\mu$ is an operator which apply on states). So the transformation laws of states and operators are different. In your exemple, it is a translation transformation. With your conventions, the transformation for a state $S$ is $T(a)^{-1}S$, while the transformation for an operator $O$ is $T(a)^{-1}OT(a)$ – Trimok Jun 30 '13 at 16:32
  • @joshphysics : see my previous comments to Ome. $A$ is any state, and the definition of $B$ is simply $B=\Phi A$. I just found more simpler to work with states, because operators $P_\mu$ act simply on them. – Trimok Jun 30 '13 at 16:36
  • @Trimok I'm still unclear about the definition of $|A(x)\rangle$. If it is simply some state in the Hilbert space of the QFT, then why are you affixing a spacetime argument to it? Is it perhaps a state that corresponds to a classical field configuration $A$? Moreover, you essentially use the following fact in your derivation: $\partial_\mu|A(x)\rangle = |\partial_\mu A(x)\rangle$. Can you justify this given whatever definition of the state $|A(x)\rangle$ you are using? – joshphysics Jun 30 '13 at 18:07
  • @Ome : $|A(x)⟩$ is a "KET" state in Dirac notation, that is a vector. This is the same thing as a "wavefunction" $A(x)$. You can decompose the wave function $A(x)$ on some basis $B_i$, with $A(x)=∑A_i(x)B_i$. This is the same thing as writing $|A(x)⟩=∑A_i(x)|B_i⟩$. Now, I have kept the $x$ indice, to keep in mind, that this "KET" or this "wavefunction" depends on space-time coordinates (here "x" is a general notation for space-time coordinates $(x_0=t,x_1=x,x_2=y,x_3=z))$. $|A(x)⟩$ is the same thing as a "wavefunction" $A(\vec x,t)$. – Trimok Jun 30 '13 at 18:44
  • @joshphysics : I have made an error in a previous comment which I delete and replace by an other comment to Ome (see above). The correct way is to consider a basis $|B_i>$ with $|A(x)> = \sum A_i(x)|B_i>$, so $\partial_\mu|A(x)> = \sum \partial_\mu A_i(x)|B_i>$ – Trimok Jun 30 '13 at 18:48
  • @Trimok Are you trying to say that given any classical field configuration $A$, there is a state in the Hilbert space that corresponds to that configuration? If so, then can you justify this? I'll be honest, I don't see how your derivation in the response is mathematically correct. – joshphysics Jun 30 '13 at 18:57
  • @Ome : I made an edit at the beginning of the answer. – Trimok Jun 30 '13 at 19:04
  • @joshphysics : I don't understand your point. $|A(x)>$ is a state, and choosing some basis $|B_i>$, this state has coordinates $A_i(x)$ in this basis. – Trimok Jun 30 '13 at 19:09
  • @Trimok Why do the coefficients in the expansion of a given state have spacetime arguments? Given some basis $|e_i\rangle$ for a Hilbert space, one can simply write an arbitrary state $|\psi\rangle$ as $\sum_i c_i|e_i\rangle$; no spacetime arguments necessary. I'm trying to make sense of the spacetime arguments you are writing in the context of QFT. – joshphysics Jun 30 '13 at 19:17
  • @joshphysics : if I take a state which does not depends on $x$, and if I apply an operator wich depends on $x$ on this state, I get a final state which depends on $x$ – Trimok Jun 30 '13 at 19:23