1

Say we want to calculate $\langle f(t_2)|O|i(t_1)\rangle$. Where $O$ is an arbitrary operator. We can treat the states as stationary and then evolve the operator

$$\langle f(0)|O(t)|i(0)\rangle\\O(t) = U^{\dagger}(t_2)OU(t_1)$$

Or we can split the unitary operator into a free part and an interacting part $U(t) = U_{f}(t)U_{i}(t)$ And then evolve the states with the interacting part and the operator with the free part

$$\langle f(t_2)|U_{f}OU_{i}|i(t_1)\rangle,$$

which is the interaction picture. Since the interacting field $\phi$ is an operator, we expect it to evolve as if it were free, so whenever we calculate the matrix element we just plug in the free field expressions into the Hamiltonian. However, this answer says that we expect $U^{\dagger}\phi U$ to give us an interacting field, that solves the interacting field equation. It turns out that it doesn’t due to Haag’s theorem. But why expect $U^{\dagger}\phi U$ to give us the time evolution of an interacting field when by the way we defined the interaction picture it should just give us the time evolution for the free field?

Nihar Karve
  • 8,445
  • I couldn’t understand what you are asking. Are you asking why the operator of the Heisenberg picture enjoys time evolution of an interacting theory? This has nothing to do with the interaction picture. – Siam Apr 25 '23 at 23:13
  • @Siam no, I’m asking why we use the unitary operator to evolve a free field to a free field, and then use the same one to evolve a free field to an interacting field. Which one is it? –  Apr 26 '23 at 00:13
  • In the interaction picture the field operator evolves in time by $e^{iH_0t}$ and in the Heisenberg picture it evolves in time by $e^{iHt}$. Naturally, these are different. Basically, the philosophy of the interaction picture is to map interaction fields to free fields by unitary transformations, and Haag's theorem asserts that such unitary operators can only be constructed for free fields under the Wightman axiomatic system. I see from your question that you understand these things, but could you please elaborate on your comment "which one is it"? Maybe I can see where you are confused. – Siam Apr 26 '23 at 01:41
  • @Siam $U^{\dagger}OU$ evolves operator $O$ in the interaction picture if $U$ contains just free part of Hamiltonian. So for example if we look at a free scalar field at some moment in time $\phi(t_{0},x)$, sandwiching it between $U^{\dagger}(t)$ and $U(t)$ should evolve it to some later time $\phi(t,x)$ which should also be free. So why do we expect evolving free field by sandwiching it between the same operators to be interacting if it clearly would not be? Or do we instead sandwich the free field between unitary operators that contain the interacting part? –  Apr 26 '23 at 22:26
  • Maybe now I understand. If $U_0(t)=e^{iH_0t}$, are you thinking the field operator $\phi_I(x):=U_0^\dagger(t)\phi(0,\mathbf x)U_0(t)$ in the interaction picture satisfies the equation of motion for the interacting theory? This is a misunderstanding. When $U=e^{iHt}$ and the field operator is in the Heisenberg picture defined by $\phi_H(x):=U^\dagger(t)\phi(0,\mathbf x)U(t)$, then this $\phi_H$ satisfies the equations of motion for the interacting theory, $\phi_I$ does not. – Siam Apr 27 '23 at 00:39
  • Okay, but we are starting in an interacting theory. The lagrangian contains fields that are interacting. I see that you’re saying that $\phi_{H}$ satisfies the free field equation, but then how can we put this into the formula for $\phi$ in the interacting Hamiltonian whenever scattering is calculated? Shouldn’t we use the interacting field? I get the theory behind the interaction picture (and your comment as helped) but I’m having trouble connecting it to say that we can A. Put free fields into the interacting Hamiltonian. And B. How $U^{\dagger} \phi U$ relates to it. –  Apr 28 '23 at 02:18
  • First, as a reminder, it is $\phi_I$, not $\phi_H$, that satisfies the equation of motion for the free field. The $\phi_H$ satisfies the equations of motion of the interacting theories. Just to confirm. Anyway, so what you are wondering is, in the calculation of the scattering problem, why $\phi_I$ is needed and what role it plays, when the theory is written by the interacting field $\phi_H$, is that correct? – Siam Apr 28 '23 at 03:17
  • Yes. That’s what I’m wondering. –  Apr 28 '23 at 12:12

0 Answers0