10

Given the Klein-Gordon equation $$\left(\Box +m^{2}\right)\phi(t,\mathbf{x})=0$$ it is possible to find a solution $\phi(t,\mathbf{x})$ by carrying out a Fourier decomposition of the scalar field $\phi$ at a given instant in time $t$, such that $$\phi(t,\mathbf{x})=\int\frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}\tilde{\phi}\left(t,\mathbf{k}\right)e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{x}}$$ where $\tilde{\phi}\left(t,\mathbf{k}\right)$ are the Fourier modes of the corresponding field $\phi(t,\mathbf{x})$.

From this we can calculate the required evolution of the Fourier modes $\tilde{\phi}\left(t,\mathbf{k}\right)$ such that at each instant in time $t$, $\phi(t,\mathbf{x})$ is a solution to the Klein-Gordon equation. This can be done, following on from the above, as follows: $$\left(\Box +m^{2}\right)\phi(t,\mathbf{x})=\left(\Box +m^{2}\right)\int\frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}\tilde{\phi}\left(t,\mathbf{k}\right)e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{x}}\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\;\;\,\\ =\int\frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}\left[\left(\partial^{2}_{t}+\mathbf{k}^{2}+m^{2}\right)\tilde{\phi}\left(t,\mathbf{k}\right)\right]e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{x}} =0\\ \Rightarrow \left(\partial^{2}_{t}+\mathbf{k}^{2}+m^{2}\right)\tilde{\phi}\left(t,\mathbf{k}\right)=0. \qquad\qquad\qquad$$

Question: This is all well and good, but why is it that in this case we only perform a Fourier decomposition of the spatial part only, whereas in other cases, such as for finding solutions for propagators (Green's functions), we perform a Fourier decomposition over all 4 spacetime coordinates? [e.g. $$G(x-y)=\int\frac{d^{4}x}{(2\pi)^{4}}\tilde{G}\left(t,\mathbf{k}\right)e^{ik\cdot x}$$ (where in this case $k\cdot x\equiv k_{\mu}x^{\mu}$).]

Is it simply because when we construct the appropriate QFT for a scalar field we do so in the Heisenberg picture, or is there something else to it?

Apologies if this is a really dumb question but it's really been bugging me for a while and I want to get the reasoning straight in my mind!

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Will
  • 3,013

1 Answers1

17

Notation: $x=(t,\boldsymbol x)$; $k=(k_0,\boldsymbol k)$; $kx=k_0t-\boldsymbol k\cdot\boldsymbol x$; $\mathrm dx=\mathrm dt\;\mathrm d^3\boldsymbol x$; etc.

You can in principle perform the Fourier decomposition on both space and time variables, but to do so you'll need several properties of the Dirac's delta funciton:

The first one is: let $\xi\in\mathbb R$; then $$ \delta(f(\xi))=\sum_{f(\xi_i)=0} \frac{\delta(\xi-\xi_i)}{|f'(\xi_i)|} \tag{1} $$ where the sum is over every $\xi_i$ such that $f(\xi_i)=0$, ie, over the roots of $f(\xi)$.

The second one is that, given $g(\xi)$ a known function, the distributional solution of $g(\xi)f(\xi)=0$ is $f(\xi)=h(\xi)\delta(g(\xi))$ for an arbitrary function $h(\xi)$. If you believe these, then the Fourier decomposition is as follows:

Let $\phi(x)$ be the solution of $$ (\partial^2+m^2)\phi(x)=0 $$

Take the Fourier transform of the equation to find $$ (k^2-m^2)\phi(k)=0 \tag{2} $$ where $$ \phi(k)=\int \mathrm dx\ \mathrm e^{ikx} \phi(x) $$

As $\phi(x)$ is a distribution, the solution of $(2)$ is $\phi(k)=h(k)\delta(k^2-m^2)$ for an arbitrary function $h(k)$. Inverting the Fourier Transform, we find $$ \phi(x)=\int\mathrm dk\ \mathrm e^{-ikx}h(k)\delta(k^2-m^2) $$

Next, use $(1)$ to expand the delta over the roots of $k^2-m^2$. These roots are easily found to be $k_0=\pm \omega(\boldsymbol k)$, where $\omega(\boldsymbol k)=+(\boldsymbol k^2+m^2)^{1/2}$. Therefore, it is immediate to get $$ \phi(x)=\int\mathrm dk\ \mathrm e^{-ikx}h(k)\frac{1}{2\omega}\left[\delta(k_0-\omega)+\delta(k_0+\omega)\right] $$ and, after integrating over $\mathrm dk_0$ using the deltas, we find $$ \phi(x)=\int\frac{\mathrm d \boldsymbol k}{2\omega}\ \left[\mathrm e^{-i\omega t} \mathrm e^{i\boldsymbol k\cdot\boldsymbol x}h(\omega,\boldsymbol k)+\mathrm e^{+i\omega t} \mathrm e^{i\boldsymbol k\cdot\boldsymbol x}h(-\omega,\boldsymbol k)\right] $$

Finally, make the change of variable $\boldsymbol k\to-\boldsymbol k$ in the second term, which yeilds the usual expansion $$ \phi(x)=\int\frac{\mathrm d \boldsymbol k}{2\omega}\ \left[\mathrm e^{-ikx}a(\boldsymbol k)+\mathrm e^{+ikx}b^\dagger(\boldsymbol k)\right] $$ where I have defined $a(\boldsymbol k)=h(\omega,\boldsymbol k)$ and $b^\dagger(\boldsymbol k)=h(-\omega,-\boldsymbol k)$.

As you can see, the solution is the same as yours (modulo some irrelevant prefactor that can be reabsorbed into the definition of $h(k)$), though the algebraic procedure to find it is a bit harder.

M.N.Raia
  • 3,075
AccidentalFourierTransform
  • 53,248
  • 20
  • 131
  • 253
  • I didnt write every step of the calculation because I assume you can fill in the details. If you find this too coarse please tell me and Ill try to improve the anser. – AccidentalFourierTransform Nov 02 '15 at 17:14
  • Thanks for your answer. So is it simply that we choose how we Fourier transform depending on what is most convenient for the problem at hand? Also, is the solution to $(2)$ $\phi (k)=h(k)\delta(k^{2}-m^{2})$ simply because $(k^{2}-m^{2})\phi(k)=(k^{2}-m^{2})\delta(k^{2}-m^{2})h(k)=0$ which follows from $(k^{2}-m^{2})\delta(k^{2}-m^{2})=(k^{2}-k^{2})=0$? – Will Nov 02 '15 at 17:54
  • yes, exactly! Glad I could help :) – AccidentalFourierTransform Nov 02 '15 at 17:58
  • 1
    I assume that in your last equation you mean $a(\boldsymbol k)$ and not $a(\boldsymbol a)$. – Sito Jun 02 '20 at 12:16
  • 1
  • I don't fully understand the $ k \rightarrow -k$, my line of reasoning is that $\int \frac{dk}{2\omega}$ is a Lorentz invariant so the transformation doesn't resul in a minus sign, is that correct? – Summoned Egar Feb 02 '21 at 10:52
  • 1
    @SummonedEgar under $k\to-k$ the integral $\int_a^b \mathrm dk$ maps into $\int^{-a}_{-b}\mathrm dk$. So it is invariant as long as $-a=b$, but not if the limits are generic. In our case the integration is over all of $\mathrm R$ which is invariant under inversions, so indeed it is invariant. – AccidentalFourierTransform Feb 02 '21 at 20:42
  • @AccidentalFourierTransform Sorry to comment on an old post, but when solving the Klein-Gordon equation why must $\phi$ be a distribution and not a classical function? – CBBAM Dec 06 '23 at 21:14
  • @CBBAM The Fourier transform of a regular function is often a distribution, so if you are going to use Fourier methods, you must allow for functions to be distributions as well. – AccidentalFourierTransform Dec 06 '23 at 21:33
  • @AccidentalFourierTransform Thank you for your reply. I am not familiar with this fact. I thought the Fourier transform maps functions to functions assuming the domain is $L^1$ (which can be used to define a distribution, but still a function). Do you know where I can read more about this? – CBBAM Dec 06 '23 at 22:43
  • 1
    @CBBAM What is the Fourier transform of $f(x)=1$? (Hint: it is $\tilde f(p)=\delta(p)$). You can google "distributions and fourier transform" for more info, for example the first result https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~hunter/book/ch11.pdf seems rather good – AccidentalFourierTransform Dec 07 '23 at 14:51
  • @AccidentalFourierTransform Thank you, so this is all due to the simple fact that the initial condition might not be in $L^1$ or $L^2$, thus requiring everything to be interpreted in terms of distributions? – CBBAM Dec 07 '23 at 19:38
  • 1
    @CBBAM right. More importantly in QFT it is essential to allow for distributions, since e.g. the canonical commutation relations $[\phi(x),\dot\phi(y)]=i\delta(x-y)$ explicitly tell you that the fields are distributions. – AccidentalFourierTransform Dec 08 '23 at 16:11
  • @AccidentalFourierTransform Thank you for all your help! – CBBAM Dec 09 '23 at 00:28