• Keine Ergebnisse gefunden

Problem 14: Charge conjugation for the complex scalar field

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Aktie "Problem 14: Charge conjugation for the complex scalar field"

Copied!
2
0
0

Wird geladen.... (Jetzt Volltext ansehen)

Volltext

(1)

Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena Summer Term 2020 Prof. Andreas Wipf

M.Sc. Michael Mandl

Problems Quantum Field Theory

Sheet 4

Problem 14: Charge conjugation for the complex scalar field

The charge conjugation operation for the quantized complex scalar field is defined by φ 0 (x) = Cφ(x)C = η C φ (x) ,

where the charge conjugation operator C is unitary and leaves the vacuum state invari- ant, C|0i = |0i. η C is a complex number.

1. Show that, for the annihilation operators a p and b p , Ca p C = η C b p , Cb p C = η C a p

2. Consider the one-particle states

|a, pi = a p |0i , |b, pi = b p |0i

and show their transformation behavior under charge conjugation, C|a, pi = η C |b, pi , C|b, pi = η C |a, pi.

3. Show that the Lagrangian describing a free complex scalar field is invariant under charge conjugation.

4. How does the charge operator (discussed on exercise sheet 3) transform under charge conjugation?

Problem 15: Derivation of the Yukawa potential from Quantum Field Theory Consider a real scalar field φ(x) in the presence of a classical static source described by the density S(x),

L = 1

2 ∂ µ φ∂ µ φ − 1

2 m 2 φ 2 + Sφ .

1. Find the Hamiltonian of the theory and write down the classical equations of motion.

2. The quantization of the scalar field can be summarized as follows:

π = ∂L

∂ φ ˙ , [π(x), φ(y)] = −iδ(x − y) , φ(x) = R

dµ(p)

a p u p (x) + a p u p (x) , π(x) = 1 i R

dµ(p)ω p

a p u p (x) − a p u p (x)

,

(2)

where u p = (2π) 1

3/2

e ip·x . Construct the Hamiltonian of the quantized theory using the Fourier components of S(x),

S(x) = Z

d 3 p 1

(2π) 3/2 S p e ip·x .

Use the fact that the density S(x) is a real quantity in order to express S −p in terms of S p . Why is this the case?

3. Use the following canonical transformation,

a p = b p + η p , where η p ∈ C ,

to rewrite the Hamiltonian in such a way that only terms of the form b p b p and complex valued terms remain. This is possible by choosing an appropriate η p ∈ C.

How does the spectrum of the Hamiltionian change in the presence of the source as compared to the free Hamiltonian (i.e., S = 0)? What is the physical interpre- tation of this result?

4. Now calculate explicitly the interaction energy of two point charges q 1 and q 2 , located at positions x 1 and x 2 respectively, i.e. use

S(x) = q 1 δ(x − x 1 ) + q 2 δ(x − x 2 ) .

There will be divergent self-energy contributions appearing in the calculation.

How can you identify them and distinguish them from the interaction energy

of the two charges at two different spacetime points? Calculate the interaction

energy. Does the result seem familiar? What is the physics behind it? What

happens in the limit m → 0?

Referenzen

ÄHNLICHE DOKUMENTE

The aim of this thesis is to investigate the non-linear scalar field dynamics during preheating in different realisations of hilltop inflation, as well as in two string

In a study the respective grayvalue, which is assigned to the Polypyrrole is subsequently changed and the resulting Young’s modulus of the model is determined by means of an

One obvious difference is that the classical n-point functions involve only tree diagrams, whereas the loop diagrams of quantum field theory are missing... This is why in (3.50)

In this communication we review our recent work 1 )' 2 ) on the magnetic response of ballistic microstructures. For a free electron gas the low-field susceptibility is

Abstract We obtain a new upper bound on the dimensions of anisotropic quadratic torsion forms over a field that is an extension of finite transcendence degree of a real

the theoretical data for Au only polycrystalline sam- ples were taken into account: the monocrystals of Au seem to make s av very much outside the interval (43) and this can

His proof is based on a theorem due to Artin of 1930 in which he proved that the capitulation problem is equivalent to finding the kernel of the transfer of certain groups. Thus,

The problems mostly discussed are scalar terms in the scope of negation: While Gazdar’s mechanism predicts no implicatures in this case, examples like (4) clearly have an