• 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.


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


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

146 submissions , 123 unreviewed
3,953 questions , 1,403 unanswered
4,889 answers , 20,762 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
507 active unimported users
More ...

Are there fields corresponding to the composite particles (e.g. hydrogen atom field)?

+ 12 like - 0 dislike

In classical physics, particles and fields are completely different stuff. However, when a field is quantized, the particles appear as its excitations (e.g. photon appears as a field excitation in the quantization of electromagnetic field). In fact, for all the elementary particles, there is a corresponding field.

I am interested whether this is also true for any composite particles. Could we define, for any given composite particle, a field for which, upon quantization, that composite particle appears as its excitation? Is there, for example, anything like "hydrogen atom field"?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:29 (UTC), posted by SE-user Annera
asked Aug 20, 2016 in Theoretical Physics by Annera (60 points) [ no revision ]

3 Answers

+ 11 like - 0 dislike

$\def\rr{{\bf r}}\def\ii{{\rm i}}\newcommand{\ket}[1]{\lvert#1\rangle}$I do mostly atomic physics (where, for example, the scattering of atoms is very pertinent) so I have a slightly different take on what counts as "useful" in QFT. It is often very useful indeed to define an "atomic field operator" $\Psi(\rr)$. The excitations of this field are entire atoms, which may be either bosonic or fermionic, in which case the fields satisfy appropriate (anti-)commutation relations $$\Psi(\rr)\Psi^\dagger(\rr') \pm \Psi^\dagger(\rr')\Psi(\rr) = \delta(\rr-\rr'),$$ where the minus (plus) sign is for bosons (fermions). Thus, if $\ket{0}$ is the vacuum state containing no particles, then a general $N$-particle state corresponds to $$\ket{\phi} = \int\prod_{j=1}^N\mathrm{d}\rr_j\; \phi(\rr_1,\rr_2,\ldots,\rr_N) \Psi^\dagger(\rr_1)\Psi^\dagger(\rr_2)\cdots \Psi^\dagger(\rr_N)\ket{0},$$ where $\phi(\rr_1,\ldots,\rr_N)$ is the $N$-body wave function in coordinate space.

So far we have considered the field operator in the Schroedinger picture. In the Heisenberg picture, the time evolution of the field is generated by the Heisenberg equation $$ \ii\hbar\dot{\Psi}(\rr,t) = -\frac{\hbar^2 \nabla^2}{2m} \Psi(\rr,t) + V[\Psi;\rr]\Psi(\rr,t),$$ where the (non-linear) potential reads as $$ V[\Psi;\rr] = V_1(\rr) + \int{\rm d}\rr'\; V_2(\rr-\rr') \Psi^\dagger(\rr',t)\Psi(\rr',t).$$ The first term $V_1(\rr)$ describes a one-particle external potential, the second term $V_2(\rr)$ describes a two-body interaction potential between the atoms. Higher-order (i.e. $n$-body potential) terms are possible as well. It is straightforward to generalise the field $\Psi(\rr)$ to a spinor having a component for each possible internal state of the atom. In this case the potential terms generalise to matrices or higher order tensors coupling together different internal states, while derivative terms in the potential could appear due to artificial gauge fields, for example.

As always in QFT, this is a low-energy effective theory. The non-relativistic approximation for the kinetic energy assumes that the centre-of-mass motion of the atoms is much slower than $c$. The field description of the atoms breaks down at scales where their internal structure becomes important, e.g. length scales comparable to the Bohr radius or energies comparable to the Rydberg energy.

If you want, you can view the above as the quantisation of a complex classical "Schroedinger" field $\Psi(\rr)$ (replace $\Psi^\dagger(\rr) \to \Psi^*(\rr)$). This classical Schroedinger field obeys a (non-linear) Schroedinger equation, with an associated Hamiltonian and Lagrangian etc. We usually do not do this, because the classical field does not describe anything particularly interesting. This is because 1) Nature is quantum and 2) no quantum states exist for which the classical field description is even close to a good approximation. The situation is different in, e.g., electrodynamics, where the observable dynamics of coherent states of the electromagnetic field can be well approximated by the classical Maxwell equations in many cases. However, in atomic field theories, the fundamental excitations are composed of fermions and their number is strictly conserved. This means that coherent states cannot be prepared* and therefore the classical field theory is largely useless (same reasoning applies, e.g. to the classical Dirac equation).

*In Bose-Einstein condensates, the off-diagonal long-range order makes a coherent state description a good approximation for many properties of interest. In this case the classical field theory is very useful; it goes by the name of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:29 (UTC), posted by SE-user Mark Mitchison
answered Aug 20, 2016 by Mark Mitchison (270 points) [ no revision ]
That's an interesting viewpoint. What are the key differences between $\Psi(\mathbf r)$ and the wavefunction of one atom? I see that it obeys almost the same Schrödinger equation, except that the potential is now also a functional depending on the entire $\Psi$.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:29 (UTC), posted by SE-user Annera
@Annera For the sake of pedagogy, I would say that $\Psi({\bf r})$ and the wave function have nothing to do with each other. Any similarities are only formal; the physical meaning of the two mathematical objects is deeply different. However, the matrix elements of the operator $\Psi(\bf r)$ are, by construction, coordinate wave functions $\phi_m({\bf r})= \langle \mathbf{r}|\phi_m\rangle$ of 1-particle states, i.e. $\langle\phi_m|\Psi^\dagger({{\bf r}})|0\rangle = \phi^*_m(\bf r)$. Therefore, matrix elements of the Heisenberg equation yield a Schrodinger-like equation for the wave functions

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:29 (UTC), posted by SE-user Mark Mitchison
Okay, but isn't a system described by a "non-relativistic, number-conserving field theory" equivalent to, or at least also well-described by, standard many-body quantum mechanics? It is certainly true that this can formally be described in a field-theoretic way, which I guess is all this question strictly needs, but it isn't clear from your answer why this might actually be useful (except in the case of BEC).

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:29 (UTC), posted by SE-user Rococo
@Rococo This is just the occupation number representation ("second-quantised", if you must) of standard many-body QM in coordinate space. The interpretation of the variables in terms of "fields" is largely historical I guess. The utility of this formalism is almost certainly well documented elsewhere on this site. For example, it takes care of (anti)symmetrisation automatically, and massively simplifies the description of low-energy processes where just a few particles change quantum numbers above an N-body ground state. Otherwise one has to keep track of N redundant parameters explicitly.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:30 (UTC), posted by SE-user Mark Mitchison
+ 9 like - 0 dislike

It depends on the exact circumstance whether or not such an idea is a good approximation for the physics you want to describe.

For the hydrogen atom, you're usually not interesting in it's "scattering behaviour", you're interested in its internal energy states, how it behaves in external electromagnetic fields, etc. Such internal energy states are not well-modelled by QFT. In particular, you'll usually want to consider the proton as "fixed" and the electron as able to jump between its different energy levels. Considering the "hydrogen atom" as an indivisible (or atomic, as it were...) object is not particularly useful.

But there are composite particles where associating a field is perfectly sensible, for example the pion, whose effective field theory describes the nuclear force between hadrons - and the hadrons are also composite particles that are treated with a single field here, for instance by means of chiral perturbation theory.

There are, besides an interest in scattering behaviour (which you also might legitimately have for the hydrogen atom or other atoms, I'm not implying you should never treat the hydrogen atom this way), other reasons to model certain objects as the particles of a field:

Modern many body physics as in condensed matter theory is essentially quantum field theory, too, and it is very frequent there to have fields for composite particles, or even pseudo-particles like phonons. For instance, a simple but powerful model for superconductivity, the Landau model, just treats a conductor as a bunch of charged bosonic particles, thought of as the quanta of a field, coupled to the electromagnetic field, and superconductivity is then another instance of the Higgs mechanism of quantum field theory.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:29 (UTC), posted by SE-user ACuriousMind
answered Aug 20, 2016 by ACuriousMind (820 points) [ no revision ]
Most voted comments show all comments
So, in principle, there are corresponding fields for all the composite particles, but they aren't useful in calculations if you are not interested in the scattering processes of that particles?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:29 (UTC), posted by SE-user Annera
"there are" is the wrong verb. "There can be defined/modeled" corresponding fields for situation where creation and annihilation operators on a basic field wave function can be useful Back in 1961 I sat through a nuclear physics course where field theory was used , probably something like this tphys.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/faessler/Fuchs/Skript/Chap_8.p‌​df . It is too long ago to remember

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:29 (UTC), posted by SE-user anna v
@QuantumDot: I purposefully didn't explain in any more detail what I mean by the "scattering behaviour", but instead gave examples of what treating it as a hydrogen field does not give you. Do you disagree with us being interested in the internal states of the hydrogen atom and a QFT with a hydrogen field not modelling that? Do you disagree with the effective theory of the pion? If you were discerning enough to agree with my first sentence, you should have noticed that there's more in the rest than "scattering behaviour is the reason for defining fields".

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:29 (UTC), posted by SE-user ACuriousMind
I should clarify: I disagree with the thesis of your answer "it is not useful." Your reason for supporting that thesis in the middle paragraph are sound, and the counterexample of chiral perturbation theory is ok. But I feel your post is much too narrow (from the HEP point of view) to provide an honest answer to the question.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:29 (UTC), posted by SE-user QuantumDot
I'm not sure I agree with that "usually" - it depends on what you're doing, and if you've got two hydrogen atoms scattering off of each other (as you do in cold atom experiments, obviously, but also in many astrophysical contexts, for example) then you mostly care about the elastic scattering and you can treat each atom as a single unit. I'm not saying you should change your answer, but a nod to the fact that you sometimes do want to look at those regimes (like Mark does in his work all the time) would be good (particularly considering HNQ status).

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:29 (UTC), posted by SE-user Emilio Pisanty
Most recent comments show all comments
@ACuriousMind Just a slightly mischievous comment in response to your edit. What you call the "Higgs mechanism of QFT" is usually called the Anderson-Higgs mechanism, since it was actually discovered by Anderson in his work on superconductivity in 1958. Later work by Anderson in 1962 generalised it to mass generation in Yang-Mills theory, before the Nobel-prize-winning work of Higgs etc. in 1964. So its appearance in superconductivity is to be expected; its relevance for particle physics is rather more surprising.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:29 (UTC), posted by SE-user Mark Mitchison
@MarkMitchison: Well, according to Wikipedia, Higgs himself prefers it call it the "ABEGHHK'tH mechanism"...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:29 (UTC), posted by SE-user ACuriousMind
+ 4 like - 0 dislike

Every bound state (in particular every molecule and therefore the hydrogen atom) has an associated field, whose density figures in the statistical thermodynamics of chemical equilibrium and chemical reactions. Chemical reaction rates are computed microscopically in terms of the scattering theory of these fields or the corresponding asymptotic particles.

In nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, the corresponding field operators were constructed in Section 3 of the following paper:

W. Sandhas, Definition and existence of multichannel scattering states, Comm. Math. Phys. 3 (1966), 358-374. http://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_1/euclid.cmp/1103839514

In the relativistic case, there is a corresponding nonperturbative construction in Haag-Ruelle scattering theory, valid at all energies (assuming the validity of the Wightman axioms). https://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0509047

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2017-11-23 19:30 (UTC), posted by SE-user Arnold Neumaier
answered Feb 8 by Arnold Neumaier (12,570 points) [ no revision ]

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:
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