Does the Heisenberg equation for fields and canonical momentums hold as well for the hamiltonian density...











up vote
4
down vote

favorite












In quantum field theory, with the field $phi$ and the momentum $pi$ being operators, their time evolution is governed (in the Heisenberg-picture) by the Heisenberg equation:



begin{align}
dot{phi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{H}, phi] \
dot{pi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{H}, pi]. \
end{align}



Now, in case the Hamiltonian operator $hat{H}=int d^3x ~hat{cal H}$ can be written as an integral over the hamiltonian density $hat{cal H}$, and the fields and the momenta commute at non-equal positions, do the same equations hold as well with the Hamiltonian operator being replaced by it's density? What would the caveats be?



begin{align}
dot{phi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{cal H}, phi] \
dot{pi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{cal H}, pi]. \
end{align}










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    related: Field theory: equivalence between Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulation.
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 27 at 17:20















up vote
4
down vote

favorite












In quantum field theory, with the field $phi$ and the momentum $pi$ being operators, their time evolution is governed (in the Heisenberg-picture) by the Heisenberg equation:



begin{align}
dot{phi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{H}, phi] \
dot{pi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{H}, pi]. \
end{align}



Now, in case the Hamiltonian operator $hat{H}=int d^3x ~hat{cal H}$ can be written as an integral over the hamiltonian density $hat{cal H}$, and the fields and the momenta commute at non-equal positions, do the same equations hold as well with the Hamiltonian operator being replaced by it's density? What would the caveats be?



begin{align}
dot{phi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{cal H}, phi] \
dot{pi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{cal H}, pi]. \
end{align}










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    related: Field theory: equivalence between Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulation.
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 27 at 17:20













up vote
4
down vote

favorite









up vote
4
down vote

favorite











In quantum field theory, with the field $phi$ and the momentum $pi$ being operators, their time evolution is governed (in the Heisenberg-picture) by the Heisenberg equation:



begin{align}
dot{phi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{H}, phi] \
dot{pi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{H}, pi]. \
end{align}



Now, in case the Hamiltonian operator $hat{H}=int d^3x ~hat{cal H}$ can be written as an integral over the hamiltonian density $hat{cal H}$, and the fields and the momenta commute at non-equal positions, do the same equations hold as well with the Hamiltonian operator being replaced by it's density? What would the caveats be?



begin{align}
dot{phi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{cal H}, phi] \
dot{pi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{cal H}, pi]. \
end{align}










share|cite|improve this question















In quantum field theory, with the field $phi$ and the momentum $pi$ being operators, their time evolution is governed (in the Heisenberg-picture) by the Heisenberg equation:



begin{align}
dot{phi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{H}, phi] \
dot{pi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{H}, pi]. \
end{align}



Now, in case the Hamiltonian operator $hat{H}=int d^3x ~hat{cal H}$ can be written as an integral over the hamiltonian density $hat{cal H}$, and the fields and the momenta commute at non-equal positions, do the same equations hold as well with the Hamiltonian operator being replaced by it's density? What would the caveats be?



begin{align}
dot{phi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{cal H}, phi] \
dot{pi} = frac{i}{hbar}[ hat{cal H}, pi]. \
end{align}







quantum-field-theory field-theory hamiltonian-formalism commutator poisson-brackets






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 27 at 14:17









Qmechanic

100k121811133




100k121811133










asked Nov 27 at 12:55









Quantumwhisp

2,679623




2,679623








  • 1




    related: Field theory: equivalence between Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulation.
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 27 at 17:20














  • 1




    related: Field theory: equivalence between Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulation.
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    Nov 27 at 17:20








1




1




related: Field theory: equivalence between Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulation.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
Nov 27 at 17:20




related: Field theory: equivalence between Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulation.
– AccidentalFourierTransform
Nov 27 at 17:20










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
5
down vote



accepted










You have $hat{H} = int d^3x hat{tilde{H}}(x)$. That implies that canonical Relations will be slightly altered.



For a Quantum field Operator $hat{phi}(x',t)$ distributed over space $x'$ and time $t$, you will have a relation like the following:



$[hat{tilde{H}}(x),hat{phi}(x',t)] = frac {partial}{partial t} hat{phi(x',t)} delta(x-x')$.



The Delta function factor ensures not only the commutation of Operators for nonequal space Points; also that after Integration over space, the ordinary commutation Relations are obtained






share|cite|improve this answer




























    up vote
    8
    down vote














    1. The answer is No. For starters for dimensional reasons. A density carries dimension $L^{-3}$.


    2. In the classical (as opposed to the quantum) case, it is tempting to (at least partially) incorporate OP's suggestion for functionals
      $$ F~=~int ! d^3x~f(x), qquad G~=~int ! d^3x~g(x), tag{1} $$
      by changing the definition from the standard field-theoretic canonical Poisson bracket
      $${ F, G} ~:=~int_V ! d^3x ~left(frac{delta F}{delta phi (x)}frac{delta G}{delta pi (x)}-frac{delta F}{delta pi (x)}frac{delta G}{delta phi (x)} right)
      ~=~int_V ! d^3x ~{!{ f(x),g(x)}!} tag{2}$$

      to a same-$x$ Poisson bracket
      $$ {!{ f(x),g(x)}!} ~:=~frac{delta f(x)}{delta phi (x)}frac{delta g(x)}{delta pi (x)}-frac{delta f(x)}{delta pi (x)}frac{delta g(x)}{delta phi (x)}, tag{3} $$
      where $delta f(x)/delta phi (x)$ denote a same-spacetime functional derivative, see e.g. my Phys.SE answer here. In other words, the non-zero fundamental Poisson brackets read
      $${ phi(x),pi(y) } ~=~delta^3(x!-!y)qquadtext{and}qquad
      {!{ phi(x),pi(x) }!} ~=~1,tag{4}$$

      i.e. the same-$x$ Poisson bracket (3) is defined without a Dirac delta distribution. However, in the $x$-local ${!{cdot,cdot}!}$ formalism (3) equality signs typically only hold modulo total spacetime derivative terms.







    share|cite|improve this answer























      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "151"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f443607%2fdoes-the-heisenberg-equation-for-fields-and-canonical-momentums-hold-as-well-for%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      5
      down vote



      accepted










      You have $hat{H} = int d^3x hat{tilde{H}}(x)$. That implies that canonical Relations will be slightly altered.



      For a Quantum field Operator $hat{phi}(x',t)$ distributed over space $x'$ and time $t$, you will have a relation like the following:



      $[hat{tilde{H}}(x),hat{phi}(x',t)] = frac {partial}{partial t} hat{phi(x',t)} delta(x-x')$.



      The Delta function factor ensures not only the commutation of Operators for nonequal space Points; also that after Integration over space, the ordinary commutation Relations are obtained






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        5
        down vote



        accepted










        You have $hat{H} = int d^3x hat{tilde{H}}(x)$. That implies that canonical Relations will be slightly altered.



        For a Quantum field Operator $hat{phi}(x',t)$ distributed over space $x'$ and time $t$, you will have a relation like the following:



        $[hat{tilde{H}}(x),hat{phi}(x',t)] = frac {partial}{partial t} hat{phi(x',t)} delta(x-x')$.



        The Delta function factor ensures not only the commutation of Operators for nonequal space Points; also that after Integration over space, the ordinary commutation Relations are obtained






        share|cite|improve this answer























          up vote
          5
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          5
          down vote



          accepted






          You have $hat{H} = int d^3x hat{tilde{H}}(x)$. That implies that canonical Relations will be slightly altered.



          For a Quantum field Operator $hat{phi}(x',t)$ distributed over space $x'$ and time $t$, you will have a relation like the following:



          $[hat{tilde{H}}(x),hat{phi}(x',t)] = frac {partial}{partial t} hat{phi(x',t)} delta(x-x')$.



          The Delta function factor ensures not only the commutation of Operators for nonequal space Points; also that after Integration over space, the ordinary commutation Relations are obtained






          share|cite|improve this answer












          You have $hat{H} = int d^3x hat{tilde{H}}(x)$. That implies that canonical Relations will be slightly altered.



          For a Quantum field Operator $hat{phi}(x',t)$ distributed over space $x'$ and time $t$, you will have a relation like the following:



          $[hat{tilde{H}}(x),hat{phi}(x',t)] = frac {partial}{partial t} hat{phi(x',t)} delta(x-x')$.



          The Delta function factor ensures not only the commutation of Operators for nonequal space Points; also that after Integration over space, the ordinary commutation Relations are obtained







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Nov 27 at 13:07









          kryomaxim

          1,662620




          1,662620






















              up vote
              8
              down vote














              1. The answer is No. For starters for dimensional reasons. A density carries dimension $L^{-3}$.


              2. In the classical (as opposed to the quantum) case, it is tempting to (at least partially) incorporate OP's suggestion for functionals
                $$ F~=~int ! d^3x~f(x), qquad G~=~int ! d^3x~g(x), tag{1} $$
                by changing the definition from the standard field-theoretic canonical Poisson bracket
                $${ F, G} ~:=~int_V ! d^3x ~left(frac{delta F}{delta phi (x)}frac{delta G}{delta pi (x)}-frac{delta F}{delta pi (x)}frac{delta G}{delta phi (x)} right)
                ~=~int_V ! d^3x ~{!{ f(x),g(x)}!} tag{2}$$

                to a same-$x$ Poisson bracket
                $$ {!{ f(x),g(x)}!} ~:=~frac{delta f(x)}{delta phi (x)}frac{delta g(x)}{delta pi (x)}-frac{delta f(x)}{delta pi (x)}frac{delta g(x)}{delta phi (x)}, tag{3} $$
                where $delta f(x)/delta phi (x)$ denote a same-spacetime functional derivative, see e.g. my Phys.SE answer here. In other words, the non-zero fundamental Poisson brackets read
                $${ phi(x),pi(y) } ~=~delta^3(x!-!y)qquadtext{and}qquad
                {!{ phi(x),pi(x) }!} ~=~1,tag{4}$$

                i.e. the same-$x$ Poisson bracket (3) is defined without a Dirac delta distribution. However, in the $x$-local ${!{cdot,cdot}!}$ formalism (3) equality signs typically only hold modulo total spacetime derivative terms.







              share|cite|improve this answer



























                up vote
                8
                down vote














                1. The answer is No. For starters for dimensional reasons. A density carries dimension $L^{-3}$.


                2. In the classical (as opposed to the quantum) case, it is tempting to (at least partially) incorporate OP's suggestion for functionals
                  $$ F~=~int ! d^3x~f(x), qquad G~=~int ! d^3x~g(x), tag{1} $$
                  by changing the definition from the standard field-theoretic canonical Poisson bracket
                  $${ F, G} ~:=~int_V ! d^3x ~left(frac{delta F}{delta phi (x)}frac{delta G}{delta pi (x)}-frac{delta F}{delta pi (x)}frac{delta G}{delta phi (x)} right)
                  ~=~int_V ! d^3x ~{!{ f(x),g(x)}!} tag{2}$$

                  to a same-$x$ Poisson bracket
                  $$ {!{ f(x),g(x)}!} ~:=~frac{delta f(x)}{delta phi (x)}frac{delta g(x)}{delta pi (x)}-frac{delta f(x)}{delta pi (x)}frac{delta g(x)}{delta phi (x)}, tag{3} $$
                  where $delta f(x)/delta phi (x)$ denote a same-spacetime functional derivative, see e.g. my Phys.SE answer here. In other words, the non-zero fundamental Poisson brackets read
                  $${ phi(x),pi(y) } ~=~delta^3(x!-!y)qquadtext{and}qquad
                  {!{ phi(x),pi(x) }!} ~=~1,tag{4}$$

                  i.e. the same-$x$ Poisson bracket (3) is defined without a Dirac delta distribution. However, in the $x$-local ${!{cdot,cdot}!}$ formalism (3) equality signs typically only hold modulo total spacetime derivative terms.







                share|cite|improve this answer

























                  up vote
                  8
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  8
                  down vote










                  1. The answer is No. For starters for dimensional reasons. A density carries dimension $L^{-3}$.


                  2. In the classical (as opposed to the quantum) case, it is tempting to (at least partially) incorporate OP's suggestion for functionals
                    $$ F~=~int ! d^3x~f(x), qquad G~=~int ! d^3x~g(x), tag{1} $$
                    by changing the definition from the standard field-theoretic canonical Poisson bracket
                    $${ F, G} ~:=~int_V ! d^3x ~left(frac{delta F}{delta phi (x)}frac{delta G}{delta pi (x)}-frac{delta F}{delta pi (x)}frac{delta G}{delta phi (x)} right)
                    ~=~int_V ! d^3x ~{!{ f(x),g(x)}!} tag{2}$$

                    to a same-$x$ Poisson bracket
                    $$ {!{ f(x),g(x)}!} ~:=~frac{delta f(x)}{delta phi (x)}frac{delta g(x)}{delta pi (x)}-frac{delta f(x)}{delta pi (x)}frac{delta g(x)}{delta phi (x)}, tag{3} $$
                    where $delta f(x)/delta phi (x)$ denote a same-spacetime functional derivative, see e.g. my Phys.SE answer here. In other words, the non-zero fundamental Poisson brackets read
                    $${ phi(x),pi(y) } ~=~delta^3(x!-!y)qquadtext{and}qquad
                    {!{ phi(x),pi(x) }!} ~=~1,tag{4}$$

                    i.e. the same-$x$ Poisson bracket (3) is defined without a Dirac delta distribution. However, in the $x$-local ${!{cdot,cdot}!}$ formalism (3) equality signs typically only hold modulo total spacetime derivative terms.







                  share|cite|improve this answer















                  1. The answer is No. For starters for dimensional reasons. A density carries dimension $L^{-3}$.


                  2. In the classical (as opposed to the quantum) case, it is tempting to (at least partially) incorporate OP's suggestion for functionals
                    $$ F~=~int ! d^3x~f(x), qquad G~=~int ! d^3x~g(x), tag{1} $$
                    by changing the definition from the standard field-theoretic canonical Poisson bracket
                    $${ F, G} ~:=~int_V ! d^3x ~left(frac{delta F}{delta phi (x)}frac{delta G}{delta pi (x)}-frac{delta F}{delta pi (x)}frac{delta G}{delta phi (x)} right)
                    ~=~int_V ! d^3x ~{!{ f(x),g(x)}!} tag{2}$$

                    to a same-$x$ Poisson bracket
                    $$ {!{ f(x),g(x)}!} ~:=~frac{delta f(x)}{delta phi (x)}frac{delta g(x)}{delta pi (x)}-frac{delta f(x)}{delta pi (x)}frac{delta g(x)}{delta phi (x)}, tag{3} $$
                    where $delta f(x)/delta phi (x)$ denote a same-spacetime functional derivative, see e.g. my Phys.SE answer here. In other words, the non-zero fundamental Poisson brackets read
                    $${ phi(x),pi(y) } ~=~delta^3(x!-!y)qquadtext{and}qquad
                    {!{ phi(x),pi(x) }!} ~=~1,tag{4}$$

                    i.e. the same-$x$ Poisson bracket (3) is defined without a Dirac delta distribution. However, in the $x$-local ${!{cdot,cdot}!}$ formalism (3) equality signs typically only hold modulo total spacetime derivative terms.








                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Nov 29 at 13:51

























                  answered Nov 27 at 13:12









                  Qmechanic

                  100k121811133




                  100k121811133






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f443607%2fdoes-the-heisenberg-equation-for-fields-and-canonical-momentums-hold-as-well-for%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

                      ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

                      Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?