12

In relativistic QFT, Haag's theorem states that the Hilbert space of an interacting theory is generally not the same as the Hilbert space of the associated free theory.

I thought this wasn't a problem in nonrelativistic QFT or nonrelativistic QM. For example, the Hilbert space for a single spinless particle should just be $L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$ no matter what the interactions are. However, in the comments in this question, it is claimed that even in the context of single particle nonrelativistic QM, the interacting Hilbert space can be different!

Is this claim correct? If so, can one give a concrete example where this happens?

knzhou
  • 101,976
  • I think you (and/or the commenters there) need to clarify the notion of "different Hilbert spaces" for this question to be well-defined. Since all separable Hilbert spaces are isomorphic as Hilbert spaces, the notion of a "different Hilbert space" is, taken literally, non-sensical. Haag's theorem talks about unitarily inequivalent representations of the QFT CCR. For CCR in finitely many d.o.f., the Stone-von Neumann theorem shows all representations are unitarily equivalent, so the precise analogue of Haag's theorem does not hold in QM. – ACuriousMind Feb 15 '17 at 21:41
  • 2
    @ACuriousMind If I knew enough math to make this question 'well-defined', I would already know the answer, since 99% of the challenge here is formulating it right. So I guess my question is, what are those comments really saying, and is there a way for them to be correct? – knzhou Feb 15 '17 at 21:44
  • You might be interested in the recent comments below AFT's answer; we are both no longer sure that his/her example is quite correct. – tparker Aug 14 '18 at 15:17

1 Answers1

10

Haag's theorem is about degrees of freedom. More precisely, about the fact that a quantum theory with an infinite number of degrees of freedom is either free or ill-defined. In this sense, you would only encounter it in QFT, either relativistic or non-relativistic. You cannot clash with Haag's result if you are studying the Dirac equation for a finite number of particles; and you will clash with it if you are studying the Schrödinger field. Haag's theorem has little to do with whether the system is relativistic or not; it has to do with the number of degrees of freedom in it.

As for a concrete example we will follow Itzykson and Zuber. Let us consider a lattice of $N$ half-integers spins. The phase-space variables are $\vec\sigma(i)$, where $i$ labels the site on the lattice. We label the states through their eigenvalue under $\sigma_3(i)$: $$ |\pm\pm\cdots\pm\rangle $$ which are generated by the action of the $\sigma_-$ upon the vacuum $$|0\rangle=|++\cdots+\rangle $$

We can make the unitary transformation $\vec\tau(i)\equiv U^\dagger(\theta) \vec\sigma(i)U(\theta)$, with $$ U=\exp\left[i\frac{\theta}{2}\sum_{j=1}^N\sigma_2(j)\right] $$ under which $$ \begin{aligned} \tau_1&=\sigma_1\cos\theta-\sigma_3\sin\theta\\ \tau_2&=\sigma_2\\ \tau_3&=\sigma_1\sin\theta+\sigma_3\cos\theta \end{aligned} $$

The operators $\vec\sigma(i)$ and $\vec\tau(i)$ are unitary equivalent. They satisfy the same algebra (that of $\mathfrak{su}(2)$).

Let us now consider the ground state of $\vec\tau$: $$ |\theta\rangle=U^\dagger(\theta)|0\rangle $$

It is straightforward to check that $$ \langle 0|\theta\rangle=\cos^N\frac\theta2 $$

The main point is the following: We now try to conside the same system, in the limit $N\to\infty$. The Hilbert space of states is constructed from the ground state $|0\rangle$ by the action of a finite number of creation operators $\sigma^-$ (and Cauchy completion). We can perform the same rotation as before, $$ \begin{aligned} \tau_1&=\sigma_1\cos\theta-\sigma_3\sin\theta\\ \tau_2&=\sigma_2\\ \tau_3&=\sigma_1\sin\theta+\sigma_3\cos\theta \end{aligned} $$ and ask ourselves if the $\vec\tau$'s are unitary equivalent to the $\vec\sigma$'s. For one thing, they satisfy the same algebra, and as such, they physically represent the same system.

To see that no such unitary transformation can exist, we note that all the nonrotated states are orthogonal to the rotated ones. For example, $\langle 0|\theta\rangle\to0$ in the $N\to\infty$ limit. Other states are orthogonal to the nonrotated vacuum as well, $\langle 0|\theta,i\rangle=0$ where $i\in\mathbb N$ labels the different rotated states, with $i=0$ corresponding to the rotated vacuum.

These vectors being orthogonal implies that there is no unitary transformation $\vec\tau =U^\dagger(\theta)\vec\sigma U(\theta)$ such that $|\theta\rangle=U(\theta)|0\rangle$. Indeed, assume that such an operator exists, and write \begin{equation} 1=\langle 0|U U^\dagger|0\rangle=\sum_{i\in\mathbb N}\langle 0|U|i\rangle\langle i|U^\dagger|0\rangle=0 \end{equation} a contradiction. Thus, no such $U$ exists, despite the fact that the systems are physically equivalent.

The take-home message is that in theories with an infinite number of degrees of freedom, physically equivalent observables are not necessarily unitary equivalent.

AccidentalFourierTransform
  • 53,248
  • 20
  • 131
  • 253
  • Thanks for the answer! Just to make sure, does your first comment imply that the comments I linked to are incorrect, and that this issue never occurs in QM (non-QFT)? – knzhou Feb 15 '17 at 21:56
  • @knzhou well, not necessarily. Haag's theorem implies non-equivalent Hilbert spaces, but this doesnt mean that non-equivalent Hilbert spaces imply Haag's theorem. In a system with a finite number of d.o.f., Haag's theorem doesnt apply, but in principle you may have non-equivalent Hilbert spaces for other reasons. That being said, I agree with Prahar's first comment, but not quite with the rest (and specially with the third one: Prahar says that the Hilbert spaces of $H_i=\frac{P^2}{2m_i}$ are non-equivalent for $m_1\neq m_2$, which is clearly false: both Hilbert spaces are $L^2(R)$, and – AccidentalFourierTransform Feb 15 '17 at 22:03
  • cont. you can expand any wave function in the former in terms of plane waves constructed in the latter). But he has a point in the 1st comment: imagine an H_0 that depends on the phase space variables P,X. If you add the perturbation $V=P^4$, then you dont change the Hilbert space. But if you add the perturbation $\vec L\cdot \vec S$, with $S$ the spin of the particle, then you do change the Hilbert space, because the new space has three phase space variables P,X,S, and you cannot span the latter with a basis of the former (because S represents a new d.o.f., which is not present in the former) – AccidentalFourierTransform Feb 15 '17 at 22:06
  • Going back to this after a while, I'm confused about the claim that "there is no $U$ mapping $|0 \rangle$ to $|\theta\rangle$ because $\langle 0 | \theta \rangle = 0$". Why can't you have a unitary take a state to an orthogonal state? – knzhou Oct 14 '17 at 14:04
  • @knzhou the explanation in Itzykson and Zuber was somewhat sketchy. I filled in some details. Hope it's better now. – AccidentalFourierTransform Oct 14 '17 at 19:56
  • Okay, I see, the issue is that all the states are orthogonal. Cool! – knzhou Oct 14 '17 at 21:10
  • How exactly are you defining an "infinite number of degrees of freedom"? I would say that the quantum harmonic oscillator, or a single non-relativistic free particle, has an infinite number of degrees of freedom because their Hilbert space $L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ is infinite-dimensional, but this issue doesn't come up in that context because the Hilbert space isn't "infinite-dimensional enough". Do you mean that the Hilbert space is nonseparable? But in that case, doesn't the Wightman axiom W0 postulate that the Hilbert space of QFT is separable? – tparker Aug 12 '18 at 20:47
  • 1
    @tparker number of degrees of freedom = number of phase-space variables (or = dimension of the phase-manifold). For a system of $N$ particles in 3d space, $|\text{d.o.f.}|=|{\vec x_i}{i=1,\dots,N}|+|{\vec p_i}{i=1,\dots,N}|=6N$. In field theory with field ${\phi^a}{a=1,\dots,n}$, the phase-space variables are ${\phi^a(\vec x),\pi_a(\vec x)}{a=1,\dots,n}^{x\in\mathbb R^3}$, that is, there are $3n$ for each point $\vec x$ in space $\mathbb R^3$. That is, an infinite number of d.o.f. In the example in my post, the phase-space variables are ${\vec\sigma(i)}_{i=1,\dots,N}$ (1/2) – AccidentalFourierTransform Aug 13 '18 at 13:23
  • (2/2), which are finite as long as $N$ is finite, but become infinite in the $N\to\infty$ limit. This has nothing to do with (lack of) separability. See also Schrödinger field. In short, it is the QFT of a scalar field whose Lagrangian is the Schrödinger Lagrangian (instead of, say, the Klein-Gordon Lagrangian). Here, the phase-space variables are ${\psi(\vec x),\psi^*(\vec x)}_{\vec x\in\mathbb R^3}$, which are infinite in number. (It is the "second quantised" Schrödinger equation, but I really dislike that terminology). – AccidentalFourierTransform Aug 13 '18 at 13:27
  • ($3n$ should read $2n$...) – AccidentalFourierTransform Aug 13 '18 at 13:39
  • If I'm understanding your last equation correctly, than you meant to write $U^\dagger U$ instead of $U U^\dagger$. Then after the insertion of the resolution of the identity between the $U^\dagger$ and the $U$, the right-hand matrix element becomes $\langle i | U | 0\rangle = \langle i | \theta\rangle$. which you claim is zero for all $i \in \mathbb{N}$. Am I correct? – tparker Aug 14 '18 at 01:47
  • But if so, then I don't think that the $|i\rangle$ form an orthonormal basis for the Hilbert space. That's because the completeness requirement for an orthonormal basis is "if $\langle v | k \rangle = 0$ for all $| k \rangle \in B$ (the basis) and some $|v \rangle \in H$, then $|v\rangle = 0$." So if you've found a nonzero ket $|\theta\rangle$ orthogonal to every $|i\rangle$, then the $|i\rangle$ don't form an orthonormal basis for the Hilbert space. So we do we assume that $\sum_{i \in \mathbb{N}} |i\rangle \langle i |$ is a ... – tparker Aug 14 '18 at 01:51
  • ... valid resolution of the identity? – tparker Aug 14 '18 at 01:51
  • @tparker Hmm you have a point. The reference (Itzykson&Zuber) is not very explicit/detailed here, and I don't really remember how I got the equation I wrote above. I believe it is correct, but I'm not 100% sure. I'll have to think about it. – AccidentalFourierTransform Aug 14 '18 at 02:00
  • I believe the resolution is that if define that "the Hilbert space of states is constructed from the ground state $| 0 \rangle$ by the action of a finite number of creation operators $\sigma^-$ (and Cauchy completion)", then the Hilbert spaces generated by the $|0\rangle$ and $|\theta\rangle$ vacua are actually disjoint. I.e. no vector in either Hilbert space is a limit point of any sequence of vectors in the other Hilbert space. Since it seems clear that the physical Hilbert space should include both these Hilbert spaces, perhaps your proposed Hilbert space construction is not the right one. – tparker Aug 14 '18 at 03:08
  • 1
    It looks like Haag's theorem actually refers to unitary maps between different Hilbert spaces, not unitary operators on a single Hilbert space. In this case your inner product $\langle 0 | \theta \rangle$ doesn't make any sense because the kets lie in different Hilbert spaces. What page is Itzykson and Zuber's discussion on? – tparker Aug 14 '18 at 03:19
  • @tparker Itzykson & Zuber, section 4-4-1, pp. 164-165. See also 1602.00662, sections 2.2-2.3, pp. 8-10 for a similar phenomenon. – AccidentalFourierTransform Aug 14 '18 at 14:32
  • @AccidentalFourierTransform That's actually section 4-1-1. I agree that their argument is very vague, but I'm not sure that the missing steps that you filled in are actually correct. – tparker Aug 14 '18 at 15:14