Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New features!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

123 submissions , 104 unreviewed
3,547 questions , 1,198 unanswered
4,552 answers , 19,366 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
411 active unimported users
More ...

Boundary conditions / uniqueness of the propagators / Green's functions

+ 7 like - 0 dislike
16 views

My question(s) concern the interpretation and uniqueness of the propagators / Green's functions for both classical and quantum fields.

It is well known that the Green's function for the Laplace equation $$ \Delta_x G(x,x') = \delta^{(3)}(x-x') $$ with boundary conditions $$ G(x,x') = 0 \text{ for } x\in\partial D, x'\in D$$ is determined uniquely. This is because any harmonic function that vanishes on the boundary of domain must vanish inside as well.

In contrast, I am confused about the uniqueness of the Green's function for the wave equation $$ (∂_t^2 - \Delta)G(x,t;x',t') = \delta^{(3)}(x-x')\delta(t-t') $$ Without specifying boundary conditions, there exist many homogenuous solutions to the wave equation and thus many different Green's functions.

Physicists usually offer me several canonical choices, like the retarded, the advanced and also the Feynman propagator, but I don't understand what makes each choice unique compared to the others, or which boundary conditions correspond to which choice. Hence, my question is

Which boundary conditions correspond to retarded, the advanced and the Feynman propagator? What other possibilities for boundary conditions and propagators are there?

I am also confused by the situation in quantum field theory, where we have various conventions for propagators and time-ordering like $$ \langle0|T_t\lbrace a(x,t)a^\dagger(x',t')\rbrace |0\rangle $$ Apparently, the ground state is very important for selecting the right Green's function (see also my previous question), but I still don't understand why that is.

How does the vacuum state act as a boundary condition in the spirit of the previous question?

There is also the issue of imaginary time. The point is that imaginary time turns the wave equation $(\partial_t^2 -\Delta)\phi=0$ into the Laplacian $(\partial_\tau^2 + \Delta)\phi = 0$, but I don't understand how the usual analytic continuation $\tau \to it \pm i\eta$ for various propagators depends on the boundary conditions. For instance, Tsvelik writes in equation (22.4) that the imaginary time Green's function for the Laplacian in 2D is "obviously" the one that vanishes when $\tau$ and $x$ go to infinity, but I don't understand the reasoning behind this choice.

What are the right boundary conditions for Green's functions in imaginary time? Is it clear that the path integral formalism selects the right ones?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
asked Jan 17, 2012 in Theoretical Physics by Greg Graviton (575 points) [ no revision ]
Indeed, the wave equation solely does not fix its solution in a unique way. So for different boundary conditions you get different unambiguous solutions. Vacuum expectation of a product of two field operators (filed correlator) is a Green's function because the Green's function has a spectral bi-linear representation via eigenfunctions $\sum_n \psi_n (\vec{x})\psi_n (\vec{x'})e^{-iE_n (t-t')}$ and $\theta (t-t')$.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

1 Answer

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

Retarded propagators are those with $G(\dots, t,t')=0$ for all $t<t'$. They're vanishing before $t=t'$, the delta-function "stimulates" the field at $t=t'$, and the Green's function for positive $t-t'$ measures the response of the field. One may view this description as a construction of the Green's function which also proves that it's unique.

Advanced propagators are the time reversal of the retarded ones, with the sign of $t-t'$ interchanged in the description above. (Recheck whether I haven't permuted the two propagators by a mistake: beware of sign errors.) Feynman propagators are the arithmetic averages of the corresponding retarded and advanced ones.

The (non-thermal) Green's functions are defined as correlation functions in the vacuum state. This is useful because the ground state is the simplest state and all other multiparticle states may be built from the ground state by adding linear combinations of fields (check the LSZ formula etc.). For this reason, the structure of the vacuum including all the correlations in it "knows" about all dynamical questions.

In thermal field theory, the expectation values in the vacuum are replaced by ${\rm Tr}(\rho \dots)$ where $\rho=\exp(-\beta H)$ is the thermal density matrix.

The latter point also clarifies why the vacuum statet acts like a "boundary condition": the $T=0$ (non-thermal) correlators may be calculated for $t=\infty (1+i\epsilon)$ which has an infinite real part but a relatively smaller imaginary part, too. By analyticity, the small imaginary "angle" doesn't change the Green's function much. However, it simplifies the calculation because the evolution operator will contain an extra factor of $\exp(-\epsilon \infty H)$ which is still enough to exponentially suppress all excited states relatively to the ground state. When $\infty$ is really sent to infinity, only the matrix elements evaluated relatively to the ground state survive. The same comments and choices apply to the infinite future. For this reason, the vacuum matrix elements are automatically picked from the simplest boundary conditions one may assume at $t=\pm\infty$.

The small but nonzero value of $\epsilon$ gets translated to the $i\epsilon$ in Feynman's propagator: a procedure like this one also shows why Feynman's propagators are the correct ones to use in the Feynman diagrams.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Jan 18, 2012 by Luboš Motl (10,178 points) [ no revision ]
The equation $G(\vec{x},\vec{x'}|t,t')=0$ for all $t

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysics$\varnothing$verflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...