# Particle/Pole correspondence in QFT Green's functions

+ 7 like - 0 dislike
1424 views

The standard lore in relativistic QFT is that poles appearing on the real-axis in momentum-space Green's functions correspond to particles, with the position of the pole yielding the invariant mass of that particle. (Here, I disregard complications tied to gauge-fixing and unphysical ghosts)

Schematically, I take this to mean:

$$\text{one particle state} \Leftrightarrow \text{pole on real axis}$$

It is easy to show the correspondence going $\text{particle} \Rightarrow \text{pole}$. This is done in many textbooks, e.g. Peskin and Schroeder's text, where a complete set of states diagonalizing the field theoretic Hamiltonian is inserted into a $n$-point correlator, and a pole is shown to emerge.

However, how does one make the argument going the other way $\text{particle} \Leftarrow \text{pole}$? That is, the appearance of a pole in a Green's function indicates an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, with the eigenvalue corresponding to the particle energy?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-01-09 20:54 (UTC), posted by SE-user QuantumDot

asked Jul 2, 2014
edited Jan 9, 2017
Just to add extra information, it is possible to show within non-relativistic potential scattering theory (for well-behaved potentials) the particle/pole correspondence both ways: essentially, existence of zeros of the Jost function establishes that wavefunctions will give a normalizable bound state, and also would give a pole on the real axis of the corresponding partial wave $s$-matrix eigenvalue. What is the generalization of this to relativistic field theory?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-01-09 20:54 (UTC), posted by SE-user QuantumDot

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

For simplicity, take $\hbar=1$ and consider a Hermitian scalar, renormalized field $\phi(x)$; other fields are treated analogously. Then $$G(E)=i\int_0^\infty dt e^{itE}\langle \phi(0)\phi(t,0)\rangle =i\int_0^\infty dt e^{itE}\langle \phi(0)e^{-itH}\phi(0)\rangle\\ =\Big\langle\phi(0)\int_0^\infty dt ie^{it(E-H)}\phi(0)\Big\rangle =\langle \phi(0)(E-H)^{-1}\phi(0)\rangle =\psi^*(E-H)^{-1}\psi,$$ where $\psi=\phi(0)|vac\rangle$, since the vacuum absorbs the other exponential factors. The spectral theorem for the self-adjoint operator $H$ guarantees a spectral decomposition $\psi=\int d\mu(E')\psi(E')$ into proper or improper eigenvectors $\psi(E')$ of $H$ with eigenvalus $E'$, where $d\mu$ is the spectral measure of $H$. Orthogonality of the eigenvectors gives $$G(E)=\psi^*(E-H)^{-1}\psi =\int d\mu(E')\psi(E')^*(E-E')^{-1}\psi(E') =\int d\mu(E')\frac{|\psi(E')|^2}{E-E'}.$$ Therefore $$(1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~G(E)=\int\frac{d\rho(E')}{E-E'},$$ with the measure $d\rho(E')=d\mu(E')|\psi(E')|^2$. For negative $E$, the Greens function is finite; since the measure $\rho$ is positive, this implies that the integral is well-behaved and has no other singularities apart from those explicitly visible in the right hand side of (1). Note that (1) holds for every self-adjoint Hamiltonian, no matter what its spectrum is. It thus describes the most general singularity structure an arbitrary Greens function can have.

In general, the spectral measure consists of a discrete part corresponding to the bound states and a continuous part corresponding to scattering states. (There might also be a singular spectrum, which is usually absent and does not affect the main conclusion.) Formula (1) therefore says that (in the absence of a singular spectrum) the only possible singularities of the Greens function are poles and branch cuts. Moreover, (1) implies that $G(E)$ has a pole precisely at those discrete eigenvalues $E'$ of $H$ for which $\psi(E')$ is nonzero, and branch cuts precisely at the part of the continuous spectrum in the support of the measure $d\rho$.

In particular, any pole of $G(E)$ must be a discrete eigenvalue of $H$, whereas the converse only holds under the qualification that $\psi=\phi(0)|vac\rangle$ has a nonzero projection to the corresponding eigenspace of $H$.

The above argument applies to quantum field theories after elimination of the center of mass degrees of freedom. Thus we consider the subspace of states in which the spatial momentum vanishes. On this subspace, the bound states have a finite multiplicity only, as each mass shell is intersected with the line in momentum space defined by vanishing spatial momentum.

In terms of the original question, the direction ''pole $\to$ particle'' holds without qualification, whereas the direction ''particle $\to$ pole'' (claimed by the OP to be the obvious part) is not universally correct but only holds under a nondegeneracy condition.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-01-09 20:54 (UTC), posted by SE-user Arnold Neumaier
answered Jan 3, 2017 by (14,557 points)
In my understanding (which might be wrong), a theory obeying the Wightman axioms is "already renormalized", i.e. you have no notion of "bare propagators" in it, so how are you defining the self-energy in a Wightman theory? The self-energy is a "perturbative object".

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-26 12:36 (UTC), posted by SE-user ACuriousMind
@QuantumDot: I corrected the typo. The argument goes both ways. From your assumption and ny equation one can see that my right hand side, expanded in a spectral basis, must have a pole at $\lambda$, which is not the case if there is no discrete eigenvalue in $H$, since the rhs has poles only there.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-01-09 20:54 (UTC), posted by SE-user Arnold Neumaier
Are you sure? To rephrase the question in a couple different ways, (1) how do we know that $\mathcal{FT} \langle\hat\phi(x)\hat\phi(y)\rangle$ wouldn't "accidentally" run to infinity? (2) Why couldn't there be more poles in $\mathcal{FT} \langle\hat\phi(x)\hat\phi(y)\rangle$ than as warranted by the spectral resolution of $(E-\hat{H})$?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-01-09 20:54 (UTC), posted by SE-user QuantumDot
@QuantumDot: yes, I am sure. The rhs of my expression, when expanded into a Stieltjes integral over the spectrum of $H$, has poles exactly at the discrete eigenvalues and a branch cut at the continuous spectrum. This is a standard result from complex analysis. You can also see it by integrating over a tiny circle containing your $\lambda$ and using Cauchy's integral theorem.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-01-09 20:54 (UTC), posted by SE-user Arnold Neumaier
Hi @ArnoldNeumaier, I think that QuantumDot and I could use more details in your answer. For example, it is not clear how one would "expand ... into a sum or integral of eigenvectors and evaluate the matrix element"; for example, it seems to me that you are already assuming the existence of a discrete eigenvalue in this reasoning. In any case, I have the feeling that $G(E)$ is a very complex function of the complex variable $E$; it is clear that all the particles lead to poles, but it is not clear that all the poles come from particles (and this is precisely the question).

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-01-09 20:54 (UTC), posted by SE-user AccidentalFourierTransform
@TwoBs huh, that's really interesting and I hadn't thought of that. Maybe the question is more complicated than I thought, and I should narrow it down a bit? Anyway, you gave me a couple of topics to think about, thanks!

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-26 12:36 (UTC), posted by SE-user AccidentalFourierTransform
Oh, I see; the point is that the 2-point Green function has the property that it can be given so explicitly by the spectral decomposition, that together with constraints on $\rho$, there is no room for any additional singularities to develop. I am now happy with the answer. I will now, on my own, try to understand how this would work for higher-point functions. Thanks for your patience and time.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-01-09 20:54 (UTC), posted by SE-user QuantumDot
+ 3 like - 0 dislike

Particles are very rarely eigenstates of the Hamiltonian.

In particle physics, only (dressed) electrons (and protons?) might be eigenstates. All the other particles have a finite life-time, implying that they decay, which means that they are obviously not eigenstates.

What we want to call a particle is something which has a clear signature in a correlation function and a long life-time compare to its energy. If the theory is perturbative (e.g. QED), the free theory already gives an intuition of what we are looking for: a pole of a Green's function very close to the real axis. Once again, these appear as poles.

In strongly coupled theory (e.g. low-energy QCD), it is much less clear what particles will be if we start from the bare action (quarks+gluons). Nevertheless, there are still particles (stable or unstable, protons and neutrons for instance). There are also resonances (when the life-time is too short).

Finally, there are also strongly-coupled theories where no (quasi)-particles exist. They appear frequently in condensed-matter, and are very difficult to study since one does not have a nice picture in term of scattering, propagation, etc. to figure out what's going on.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-01-09 20:54 (UTC), posted by SE-user Adam
answered Jul 2, 2014 by (105 points)
I am perfectly aware of this technicality, and for that reason I refer, in the question, only to poles on the real axis, which correspond to strictly stable particles. Also, I am looking for a non-perturbative argument (possibly involving axiomatic field theory) for poles corresponding to particles.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-01-09 20:54 (UTC), posted by SE-user QuantumDot
I'm not sure it's a well defined question. Particles are defined by the poles: this matches both the free theory, the perturbative calculations as well as the exacts results from integrable models, and give a practical tools for non-perturbative problem.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-01-09 20:54 (UTC), posted by SE-user Adam
It seem that the word 'particles' is getting in the way. Let me state my question without using that word: "How do I prove that each pole on the real axis of Green's functions directly corresponds to an eigenvalue of the field theoretic Hamiltonian?"

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-01-09 20:54 (UTC), posted by SE-user QuantumDot

I find this passage rather strange: "Finally, there are also strongly-coupled theories where no (quasi)-particles exist. They appear frequently in condensed-matter, and are very difficult to study since one does not have a nice picture in term of scattering, propagation, etc. to figure out what's going on."

In my opinion, free (quasi)-particles in such theories are those without interaction (coupling). They make sense since it is from them the interacting theory is built, isn't it? Another question is practical implementation of free and interacting theories. There might be different possibilities, see here and here.

'' free (quasi)-particles in such theories are those without interaction (coupling). They make sense since it is from them the interacting theory is built, isn't it? '' No. Quasiparticles are collective modes constructed from the interacting theory in a way that they are effectively noninteracting at low accuracy, thus weakly interacting at higher accuracy, so that perturbation theory can be applied.

@ArnoldNeumaier: I completely agree with you and I don't understand your "No", neither somebody's downvote to my comment since in my papers I speak precisely about these possibilities.

Well, your comment is misleading since you claimed that it is from the quasiparticles that the interaction is built, which is just the opposite of what I asserted.

@ArnoldNeumaier: My comment explicitly mentions different possibilities, not one solely. Everything is at our convenience and nothing is predetermined.

It is enough to have one wrong, uncorrected statement to bring everything you say into miscredit.

@ArnoldNeumaier: My comment is general, the word "quasi" is taken into the brackets, i.e., it is optional; the word "strong" is omitted in order to cover all possible cases and not only "strongly-coupled", so your trying to present my comment as misleading and wrong is simply unjustified.

You can see how what you write is read by others. Maybe you should learn to express yourself more clearly. Note that you can edit all your comments at any time.

@ArnoldNeumaier: You too may edit and even hide your comments.

But I hide discussion only when you improve the original comment in a way that makes the discussion obsolete.

@ArnoldNeumaier: This whole question is rather obsolete. I would upvote your excellent answer if I could since you pointed out the importance of degeneracy, but this question is still at the undergraduate level.

If it is obsolete, would you agree if I hide it completely?

No, I disagree. I my comment I was speaking of the second answer where I found a strange statement. This statement has not been clarified yet.

 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$\hbar$ysicsOver$\varnothing$lowThen 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.