LSZ reduction vs adiabatic hypothesis in perburbative calculation of interacting fields

+ 6 like - 0 dislike
605 views

As far as I know, there are two ways of constructing the computational rules in perturbative field theory.

The first one (in Mandl and Shaw's QFT book) is to pretend in and out states as free states, then calculating $$\left\langle i \left| T \exp\left(-i \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} H_{int} dt \right) \right| j \right\rangle$$ by the Wick theorem, blah blah blah. The problem is, field/particle always has self interaction, in and out states are not free states. Mandl and Shaw (rev. edi. p 102) then used a heuristic argument, that assuming the interacting is adiabatically switched on, $$H_{int}(t) \rightarrow H_{int} (t) f(t)$$
such that $f(t) \rightarrow 0$, if $t \rightarrow \pm \infty$.

One may regard this is hand-waving. In certain circumstance, such as the Gell-Mann Low theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_and_Low_theorem , the adiabatically switching can be proved even non-perburbatively.

The second approach, e.g. Peskin and Schroeder's QFT, is to start from correlation function, then use LSZ reduction to connect S-matrix and correlation function. In the correlation function, an epsilon prescription of imaginary time is used. $$| \Omega \rangle = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty ( 1 - i \varepsilon ) } ( e^{-iE_0 T} \langle \Omega | 0 \rangle^{-1} ) e^{-iHT} | 0 \rangle$$

where $\Omega$ and $0$ are the vacua of interacting and free theories, respectively.

My question is about comparing these two approaches. It seems to me, at the end of the day, that the final results of calculations carried out using both approaches are identical. One may say, LSZ reduction is more physical, since there is no switch on/off in nature. One may also say, time is a real number in nature. There is no imaginary time anyway. And adiabatic switching has potentially advantage in non-perturbative aspect.

Is there any deeper reasoning for comparing these two approaches? I am sorry if this is opinion-based question.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-09-25 20:18 (UTC), posted by SE-user user26143
 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): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: 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$\varnothing$verflowThen 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.