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 printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

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

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,862 answers , 20,637 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
502 active unimported users
More ...

Source Theory - Alternative to QFT

+ 6 like - 0 dislike
396 views

I am a graduate physics student. I have started learning QFT. As a project my professor has asked me to take up and learn Source Theory, seems an alternative to regular QFT. How exactly is this formulation different? I am also interested in knowing how applicable or active is Source Theory these days.

PS: My professor said that there are some string theory calculation using Source theory.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-14 09:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user user35952
asked Feb 11, 2014 in Theoretical Physics by user35952 (155 points) [ no revision ]
have you done a google search for "source theory schwinger"?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-14 09:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user anna v
Yes. Infact, I have three volumes of Source theory books by Schwinger. Nowhere I could find the current status of this theory and its association to string theory.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-14 09:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user user35952

1 Answer

+ 7 like - 0 dislike

Julian Schwinger was a great, careful physicist.

But I think it's an abuse of terminology to use the term "theory" for the collection of insights included in his "source theory". Instead, it was really a pedagogical approach to talk about quantum field theory. The pedagogical approach tried to avoid quantum fields (operator-valued functions of spacetime).

Instead, it focused on the transition amplitudes in the presence of sources – they were really the generating functionals. The coefficients in the expansion of this functional are the usual Green's functions. So Schwinger's approach to QFT was really an approach giving a prominent role to Green's functions.

None of these technical constructs has become outdated. In QFT courses, we still teach Green's functions and other things. They're just not being associated with Schwinger because he hasn't really discovered the Green's functions (or other concepts we routinely discuss). And virtually no one shares Schwinger's opinion that one should work hard in order to avoid quantum fields (operator-valued functions of spacetime).

I would even say that Schwinger was describing QFT in this way to become the father of "another picture for quantum theories" that would be analogous to Feynman's path integrals, for example. But I don't think that he really had a new picture. Schwinger's approach was a meme that was supposed to become popular but it never did. Much of it may be viewed to be exactly equivalent to the quantities computed by Feynman's path integral.

At some moment, Julian Schwinger's life-long work on source theory would be considered boring and de facto inconsequential by his Harvard colleagues so he left Harvard for UCLA. I think it's fair to say that it's still being considered inconsequential today. Note that his first paper on "source theory" was Schwinger's most cited paper but it was really because of the particular calculation he did there, not because of the formalism he started there and spent his life by promoting it.

It is not clear to me what one could possibly mean by the statement that a calculation in string theory used "source theory". Source theory is just another way to talk about the very same concepts and calculations in quantum field theory that we normally discuss. It's not an entirely new set of methods or insights about the physical system (quantum fields). And even if a string theorist was using Schwinger's terminology, it probably had no impact on the calculation at all. It would just make his wording less comprehensible to others. The paper could have been easily translated to the prevailing language that avoids Schwinger's focus on sources (and his largely irrational desire to avoid quantum fields themselves).

If your professor can teach you QFT using Schwinger's "source theory", good for you (I also remember a textbook that was using it, and it wasn't even written by Schwinger, but that book was very old, too). It may be good for the physics community if someone still knows about the other directions of thinking and interpretations that once existed. If your professor knows source theory well enough to produce students who "see through" using Schwinger's old lens and who can still understand the contemporary particle physics, it's great. But if you can't learn QFT in this way to do the other things that are needed and that others are apparently doing with ease, then just forget it and join those who consider "source theory" to be a nearly forgotten, idiosyncratic way to talk about the very same thing that may be dropped without a loss of generality.

Every insight about perturbative quantum field theories could have been translated to the package of Schwinger's source theory except that this "language" has become sufficiently unpopular so that most of the insights, even rather elementary ones, have never been framed in that way. I actually don't know how one would talk about simple things like "dimension-6 proton decay operators" in his approach because he wants to avoid operators. It's not really the preference for sources but rather his hostility towards the normal operator-valued fields that makes Schwinger's approach almost unusable in practice.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-14 09:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user Luboš Motl
answered Feb 11, 2014 by Luboš Motl (10,248 points) [ no revision ]
Nice explanation, just reading the question I thought wtf is source theory (never heard that before and happy that I did not miss anything). As operators do not exist in this approach, would it for example be possible to do renormalizytion for example from this point of view?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-14 09:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton
I hope so because Schwinger himself is one of the fathers of renormalization theory. But I haven't really learned renormalization in that way.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-14 09:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user Luboš Motl
@LubošMotl : Thanks a lot !! I think there is probably no one better in Phys.SE than you to answer this question. Although it kind of discourages me from diving into it, I will give it a shot to see where it takes me.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-14 09:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user user35952
It was a pleasure, and good luck becoming a source theory expert - it may be sort of cool if you can do it.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-14 09:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user Luboš Motl
Thanks, Schwinger's book is as serious as Schwinger himself, do you think there is any material in this topic I can go through ?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-14 09:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user user35952

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$\varnothing$ysicsOverflow
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
...