16

We calculate the real-space propagator $\Delta(x)$ for a free real scalar field $\varphi(x)$ with mass $m$ by performing the Fourier transform (using sign convention +---)

$$\Delta(x) = \int \frac{d^3k\, d\omega}{(2 \pi)^4} \frac{e^{-i k \cdot x}}{k^2 - m^2}$$

Depending on whether we deform the contour of integration for the $\omega$ integral to the the same or opposite sides of the two poles at $\omega = \pm \sqrt{{\bf k}^2 + m^2}$, we get either the retarded or the Feynman propagator (or the advanced or the anti-time-ordered propagator, but let's ignore those two options).

From the Wikipedia article on propagator, the retarded propagator is

$$G_\text{ret}(x) = i\, \langle [ \varphi(x), \varphi(0) ] \rangle\, \Theta(x_0)= \frac{1}{2 \pi} \delta(\tau^2) - \frac{m\, J_1(m \tau)}{4 \pi \tau}$$

if $x$ is inside the origin's future light cone, and zero otherwise, where $\Theta$ is the step function, $\delta$ the Dirac delta function, $\tau$ the proper time $\sqrt{x \cdot x}$, and $J_1$ the Bessel function. The Feynman propagator is

$$G_F(x) = -i\, \langle \mathcal{T} \varphi(x) \varphi(0) \rangle = \begin{cases} -\frac{1}{4 \pi} \delta(s) + \frac{m}{8 \pi \sqrt{s}} H^{(2)}_1(m \sqrt{s}) \qquad &\text{if } s \geq 0 \\ -\frac{i m }{4 \pi^2 \sqrt{-s}} K_1(m \sqrt{-s}) \qquad &\text{if } s < 0 \end{cases},$$

where $\mathcal{T}$ is the time-ordering symbol, $s$ the spacetime interval $x \cdot x$, $H^{(2)}$ the Hankel function, and $K_1$ the modified Bessel function.

Looking at the operator expectation values, it's clear that the Feynman propagator is the right one to use for calculating probabilities of past-to-future propagation. But looking at the actual functional expressions, $G_\text{ret}$ naively "looks" more causally correct, because it vanishes outside the light cone, as we'd naively expect for a particle propagator. (I know, I know, the spacelike correlations decay exponentially and don't actually violate causality because they can't transmit causal influence, etc. etc.)

Does the retarded propagator $G_\text{ret}$ have any physical significance? I understand why locality requires $G_\text{ret}(x) \equiv 0$ for $x$ outside the lightcone, but it seems a bit strange that once we enforce this, we then completely ignore its value inside the light cone. But I don't know how to intepret the $\langle \varphi(0) \varphi(x) \rangle$ part of $G_\text{ret}$ if $x^0$ is positive.

tparker
  • 47,418

1 Answers1

10

The convolution $G_{ret}*f$ of the retarded propagator $G_{ret}$ with a source term $f$ which vanishes sufficiently far in the past is the unique solution of the inhomogeneous Klein-Gordon equation with source term $f$ which vanishes in the far past. It is necessarily a nontrivial superposition of positive and negative energy solutions at all times when it is not identically zero, precisely because it vanishes outside the future light cone of the support of $f$.

The convolution $G_F*f$ of the Feynman propagator $G_F$ with a source term $f$ which vanishes outside a bounded space-time region, on its turn, is a solution of the inhomogeneous Klein-Gordon equation which is of positive energy outside the past light cone of the support of $f$ (i.e. in the far future) and of negative energy outside the future light cone of the support of $f$ (i.e. in the far past). Because of this, it cannot vanish in any nonvoid open region of space-time, unlike $G_{ret}*f$.

The relation between the position-space support and the momentum-space support of $G_{ret}$ and $G_F$ can be seen as a consequence of the uncertainty principle, which restricts the regions where a distribution can vanish in position and momentum space (the latter after a Fourier transform).

  • 1
    Thank you, this is helpful. But what is the physical (rather than mathematical) interpretation of $G_\text{ret}$ in terms of particle or antiparticle propagation? – tparker May 22 '16 at 23:28
  • 1
    I find it difficult to offer a physical interpretation of $G_{ret}$ in terms of quantum particles. It is an inherently classical object, in the following sense: if you couple a quantum Klein-Gordon field with a classical external source which vanishes in the far past and uses the vacuum as your "in" state, your state after the source is "turned on" will be a coherent state (hence with an indefnite particle number) such that the one-point function in that state satisfies the inhomogeneous Klein-Gordon equation with the same source. – Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro May 23 '16 at 02:17
  • You can see the above mechanism acting in the opposite direction in the Bloch-Nordsieck approximation to (scalar) QED, which has the effect of turning one of the poles of the scalar field propagator "the other way round" and making it become a retarded propagator. As a result, the (soft) photon sector evolves from the vacuum to a photon coherent state corresponding to the infrared cloud. This happens because the quantum photons start seeing the scalar field as a classical source due to its modified propagator. The same happens in spinor QED, of course. – Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro May 23 '16 at 15:15
  • I am wondering what is the meaning of the Feynman propagator in from the QFT perspective. Does it represent a probability amplitude for a particle to travel from $x$ to $y$ or anything like that? I would assume that it should rather be $\langle 0| \phi(x)\phi(y)|0\rangle$ not the Feynman propagator. But what is then the meaning of the Feynman propagator? Another thing is that both these 2-point functions are supported at space-like separations. Why this does not signal faster than light propagation? – Dr.Yoma Mar 04 '23 at 17:21
  • 1
    @Dr.Yoma you're rather considering the particle interpretation within QFT, which is available in the free case (of course) and, in the interacting case, only asymptotically in the far past or in the far future. That being said, let's address your questions: 1.) you're essentially right regarding the Feynman propagator versus the Wightman propagator $\langle 0|\phi(x)\phi(y)|0\rangle$, in the sense that if you smear the latter with tempered test functions $f,g$ you get the probability transition amplitude for two positive-energy wave packets whose momentum distributions... (to continue) – Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro Mar 06 '23 at 19:04
  • 1
    (continued) ...are given by the respective restrictions of the Fourier transforms of $f,g$ to the positive (squared) mass shell. One must remark that, unlike the Feynman propagator, the Wightman propagator is a bisolution (that is, in $x$ and $y$) of the homogeneous Klein-Gordon equation, that is, without sources. The interpretation of the Feynman propagator is quite different and more closely related to the interacting case (hence the cautionary preamble): if you smear one of its variables with a test function $f$, the result is a solution of the inhomogeneous ...(to continue) – Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro Mar 06 '23 at 19:11
  • 1
    (continued) ...Klein-Gordon equation with source $f$, the result behaves as a negative-energy solution of the homogeneous Klein-Gordon equation in the causal past of the support of $f$ and as a positive-energy solution of the same equation in the causal future of the support of $f$ (in both locations, $f$ should vanish). This essentially means that the Feynman propagator smeared in both variables yields the scattering probability amplitude of a positive-energy "in" particle with a given momentum distribution by a given external source. – Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro Mar 06 '23 at 19:19
  • 1
    2.) One must be clear about what one means by "faster than light propagation" in QFT. Probability amplitudes in QFT definitely can have nonvanishing correlations between causally disjoint regions, as you exemplified. The kind of microcausality that holds true in QFT is that observables localized in causally disjoint regions should commute. In the case of the Klein-Gordon model, the smeared quantum fields are themselves observables, whose localization region is given by the support of the smearing test function. (to continue) – Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro Mar 06 '23 at 19:27
  • 1
    (continued) This can be seen as a manifestation of the fact that in QFT the field interpretation is more fundamental than the particle interpretation, which (by the way) is not always available, as pointed above. – Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro Mar 06 '23 at 19:30
  • @Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro. Thank you for a detailed reply. 1) According to your answer the discussion from Peskin and Schroeder that $\langle 0|\phi(x)\phi(y)|0\rangle$ is not the right thing to compute as one should also add the contribution from anitparticles, which is $-\langle 0|\phi(y)\phi(x)|0\rangle$ is just them sweeping the problem under the rug. This is what I expected :) But I will think about this a bit more. – Dr.Yoma Mar 06 '23 at 21:16
  • @Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro. 2) From the point of view of classical field theory, I think, I have no issues with $\langle 0|\phi(x)\phi(y)|0\rangle$. The classical Klein-Gordon field is causal. The reason why this solution is supported outside the light-cone from $x$, I believe, is that the Klein-Gordon equation is the 2nd order one, so one also has to specify first derivatives on the Cauchy surface. And these are not supported at fixed $x$, but everywhere on the surface of constant time. In turn, in quantum case, one cannot fix $\phi(x)$ and $\pi(x)=\dot\phi(x)$ as these do not commute. – Dr.Yoma Mar 06 '23 at 21:22
  • @Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro 3) You say that in QFT the field interpretation is more fundamental. I thought that whole point of quantizing fields is that they get features of point particles: you get the particle number operator, single-particle states behave as relativistic particles with a given mass. This is certainly true in free QFT. I guess, this should also be true in interacting QFT, when you talk about single-particle states of stable particles. Right? They are eigenvalues of total energy and evolve as if they are just free relativistic particles of some effective mass. – Dr.Yoma Mar 06 '23 at 21:28
  • @Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro 4) Finally, I was wondering why you emphasise that 2-point functions should be smeared against test functions. I know that this allows one to pull some mathematical tricks, making some wild operations well defined. Is there any other reason to do that? And, as far as I know (I am not very knowledgeable about this, just rumors) QFT anyway requires to multiply distributions and mathematicians do not approve that. – Dr.Yoma Mar 06 '23 at 21:31
  • @Dr.Yoma regarding your followup questions: 1.) in the OP's context we're dealing with a real free scalar field, which means that the corresponding (free) particle is its own antiparticle. 2.) Even in classical field theory, it's impossible to have a positive-energy solution of the Klein-Gordon equation with compactly supported Cauchy data. Surprisingly, this is related to the uncertainty principle, but both are different instances of the mathematical fact fact there are limits in restricting the support / growth of a tempered function / distribution and that of its Fourier transform. – Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro Mar 06 '23 at 22:27
  • (continued) Moreover, adhering to smearing test functions in space-time as I did is a practice that can be carried through to the interacting case. There is no meaningful notion of "Cauchy data" for an interacting quantum field. 3.) (first part) Indeed historically that was the case; only as QFT developed - particularly after the 50's, with results as Haag's theorem and the LSZ reduction formula for the S-matrix - we found out it was the other way around. 4.) is related to the second part of 3.), so I'll answer them together in chat since this is getting too long... (to continue) – Pedro Lauridsen Ribeiro Mar 06 '23 at 22:33