26

UPDATE

To make my question more precise, I'll define what I mean by an operator theory:

  • An operator theory is a theory in which the dynamical objects are operators, i.e., the equations of motion are imposed on operators.

  • A wave function theory, on the other hand, is a theory in which the dynamical objects are functions of space-time, i.e., the equations of motion are imposed on functions.

In wave-function theories we have differential operators (e.g., $-i\nabla$), but these aren't dynamical, so there is a clear distinction between an operator and a differential operator. To make the distinction more evident, I'll place hats $\hat{\square}$ over dynamical operators.


At the first stages of the old (non-relativistic) quantum theory Heisenberg developed a theory in which the fundamental objects were operators, namely, the position and momentum operators: $$ \begin{align} i\frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm dt} \hat X(t)&=[\hat X,\hat H] \\ i\frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm dt} \hat P(t)&=[\hat P,\hat H] \end{align} \tag{QM.1} $$

More or less one year later Schrödinger published a new theory in which the fundamental object is just a function of space-time: $$ -i\partial_t\psi(x)=-\frac{1}{2m}\Delta\psi(x)+V(x)\psi(x) \tag{QM.2} $$

Later on, Schrödinger proved that the two formulations are actually equivalent.

Nowadays we have QFT, which is an operator theory, because the equations of motion are imposed on fields, i.e., operators. For example, a scalar field $\hat\phi$ evolves through $$ \begin{align} i\frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm dt}\hat\phi(x)=[\hat\phi,\hat H]\\ i\frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm dt}\hat\pi(x)=[\hat\pi,\hat H] \end{align} \tag{QFT.1} $$ where $\hat \pi$ is the field conjugate to $\hat\phi$.

To me, it seems more or less natural to ask about a possible $(\mathrm{QFT.2})$, i.e., a formulation of QFT as a wave-function theory: $$ \begin{array} {}&\text{non-relativistic} & \text{relativistic}\\ \text{operator theory} & (\mathrm{QM.1}) & (\mathrm{QFT.1}) \\ \text{wave-function theory} & (\mathrm{QM.2}) & \quad ?? \end{array} $$

IMHO functional methods (i.e., path integrals) belong to an operator point of view. I believe it is not possible to use path integrals to calculate, for example, scattering amplitudes without using operators sooner or later, which means that path integrals don't actually fit in the $??$ slot.

My question(s):

  • Has someone done anything similar to Schrödinger, in the sense of reformulating QFT using solely functions of space-time and differential operators? Is there any theory of relativistic quantum mechanics in which the formalisms consists of PDE's?

  • If the answer to the first question is that no wave-function theory exists as for today, then is there any reason to expect that there will never be? I mean: is there a no-go theorem or an argument that suggests that it is impossible to formulate QFT as a wave-function theory?


My thoughts on this

Any relativistic theory of interactions must be able to describe creation/annihilation phenomena, which operators easily do (through $a,a^\dagger$). But a single wave-function must have a fixed number of space-time arguments, so the number of particles must be fixed. This means that one wave-function will not suffice.

A wave-function theory of interactions must, therefore, consist in an infinite number of wave-functions, each with a different number of space-time arguments: $$ \begin{align} &\psi(x_1)\\ &\psi(x_1,x_2)\\ &\psi(x_1,x_2,x_3)\\ &\cdots \end{align} $$ which means that we must have an infinite number of PDE's, one for each $\psi$. And the solutions must be consistent with the operator formulation of QFT, i.e., we must prove that the new formulation is equivalent to the old one.

I believe that the easier way to archive this is to use the correlation functions of QFT (or $n$-point functions) $$ \begin{align} \psi(x_1)&=\langle\hat\phi(x_1)\rangle\\ \psi(x_1,x_2)&=\langle\hat\phi(x_1)\hat\phi(x_2)\rangle\\ \psi(x_1,x_2,x_3)&=\langle\hat\phi(x_1)\hat\phi(x_2)\hat\phi(x_3)\rangle\\ &\cdots \end{align} $$

With this, it should be possible in principle to find the PDE's for the $\psi$'s in terms of the PDE's for $\hat\phi$. This means, we should use $(\partial^2+m^2)\hat\phi=\hat j$ to get $$ \begin{align} \mathcal O_1\ \psi(x_1)&=\mathcal J(x_1)\\ \mathcal O_2\ \psi(x_1,x_2)&=\mathcal J(x_1,x_2)\\ \mathcal O_3\ \psi(x_1,x_2,x_3)&=\mathcal J(x_1,x_2,x_3)\\ &\cdots \end{align} $$ for some differential operators $\mathcal O_i$ and some sources $\mathcal J$. Once we find the appropriate $\mathcal O_i,\mathcal J$, there will be no explicit reference to any operator, and we only use wave-functions (of course, these wave-functions don't have the same probabilistic interpretation of non-relativistic QM, but this is irrelevant: the point is to find an equivalent formulation of QFT using just functions of spacetime).

I don't know if this makes much sense, or whether there is a better approach. Any comment will be appreciated.

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
AccidentalFourierTransform
  • 53,248
  • 20
  • 131
  • 253
  • 4
    This question is very vague and ill-defined. For there to be a "theorem" you would have to have precise notions of "wave-function theory" and "operator theory". As you say, these two notions are just equivalent expressions of each other in QM. It's not that one has operators and the other doesn't, they just focus on different aspects. Saying "In wave mechanics we don't need operators" is just ridiculous, a PDE is nothing else than a (differential) operator applied to a state in $L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)$. You may avoid the word "operator", but it's there. – ACuriousMind Oct 25 '15 at 17:36
  • 1
    I didn't specify the precise meaning of "wave-function theory" and "operator theory" because I assume that those who are able to answer this question understand what those terms mean. If you problem with my question relies on the wording, you can exchange "theorem" for "theoretical evidence", or anything like that. – AccidentalFourierTransform Oct 25 '15 at 17:42
  • 1
  • Are you aware of the wavefunction formalism for QFT? 2. The terms do not, in my opinion, have any precise meaning. "operator theory" might deal more with abstract Hilbert spaces while "wave-function theory" might prefer to select a distinguished one like $L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)$, but, well, I really don't see how these two approaches could ever not be equivalent because they just differ in how you do the symbolic manipulations, not in physical content.
  • – ACuriousMind Oct 25 '15 at 17:44
  • 1
    I am not. This kind of answers is what I was expecting, so thank you. Is there any canonical reference to wavefunction formalism? – AccidentalFourierTransform Oct 25 '15 at 17:48
  • 1
    Maybe there is evidence that the Hilbert space of QFT is never isomorphic to $L^p$, which would be a perfectly reasonable "proof" that QFT cannot be recast as a wave-function theory. Your answer suggests that this is not the case, though. – AccidentalFourierTransform Oct 25 '15 at 17:50
  • 1
    Since the Schrödinger equation is only a function of spacetime when there is a single particle in the whole universe why should special relativity by itself change it to be a function of spacetime? In QFT the space of functions of spacetime become the configuration space. – Timaeus Oct 25 '15 at 21:32
  • 1
    @AccidentalFourierTransform, you may want to look into the Schwinger-Dyson equation, which are basically exactly what you proposed, i.e. equations of motion for correlation functions. It's not covered in most QFT books since it's old, but Schwartz's new QFT book gives it a few pages. – knzhou Jan 22 '16 at 19:19
  • @knzhou I'll check it out for sure! thank you for your comment (and bounty)! – AccidentalFourierTransform Jan 22 '16 at 20:15
  • Hi @knzhou, I just read this question again, and realised that your comment the Schwinger-Dyson equations is exactly what I was looking for. Ever since you mentioned them, I've been using them a lot, and I am really thankful to you for introducing them to me. Whenever you have the time, please consider posting an answer explaining them briefly :-) – AccidentalFourierTransform Apr 20 '17 at 16:57