Wednesday, 15 March 2017

quantum field theory - Physical interpretation of the retarded vs. Feynman propagators?


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.



Answer



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).



No comments:

Post a Comment

Understanding Stagnation point in pitot fluid

What is stagnation point in fluid mechanics. At the open end of the pitot tube the velocity of the fluid becomes zero.But that should result...