18.01.2015 Views

Quantum Field Theory I

Quantum Field Theory I

Quantum Field Theory I

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

96 CHAPTER 3. INTERACTING QUANTUM FIELDS<br />

After having warned the reader about the unsoundness of what follows, we<br />

can proceed directly to the interpretation of the result for one-particle initial<br />

state in terms of the decay rate: From the linear time dependence of the probability<br />

density one can read out the probability density per unit time, this is<br />

equal to the time derivative of the probability density and for the exponential<br />

decay exp(−Γt) this derivative taken at t = 0 is nothing else but the decay rate<br />

Γ (or dΓ if we are interested only in decays with specific final states).<br />

The previous statement is such a dense pack of lies that it would be hardly<br />

outmatched in an average election campaign. First of all, we did not get the<br />

linear time dependence, since T is not the ”flowing time”, but rather a single<br />

moment. Second, even if we could treat T as a variable, it definitely applies<br />

only to large times and, as far as we can see now, has absolutely nothing to say<br />

about infinitesimal times in the vicinity of t = 0. Third, if we took the linear<br />

time dependence seriously, then why to speak about exponential decay. Indeed,<br />

there is absolutely no indication of the exponential decay in our result.<br />

Nevertheless, for the reasons unclear at this point (they are discussed in the<br />

appendix ) the main conclusion of the above lamentable statement remains<br />

valid: decay rate is given by the probability quasi-density divided by T. After<br />

switching back to the infinite volume, which boils down to δ 4 V T (p f − p i ) →<br />

δ 4 (p f −p i ), one obtains<br />

dΓ = (2π) 4 δ 4 (P f −P i )<br />

1 ∏<br />

m<br />

|M fi | 2<br />

2E A<br />

where E A is the energy of the decaying particle.<br />

i=1<br />

d 3 p i<br />

(2π) 3 2E i<br />

Remark: The exponential decay of unstable systems is a notoriously known<br />

matter, perhaps too familiar to realize how non-trivial issue it becomes in the<br />

quantum theory. Our primary understanding of the exponential decay is based<br />

on the fact that exp(−Γt) is the solution of the simple differential equation<br />

dN/dt = −ΓN(t), describing a population of individuals diminishing independently<br />

of a) each other b) the previous history. In quantum mechanics, however,<br />

the exponential decay should be an outcome of the completely different time evolution,<br />

namely the one described by the Schrödinger equation.<br />

Is it possible to have the exponential decay in the quantum mechanics, i.e. can<br />

one get |〈ψ 0 |ψ(t)〉| 2 = e −Γt for |ψ(t)〉 being a solution of the Schrödinger equation<br />

with the initial condition given by |ψ 0 〉 The answer is affirmative, e.g. one<br />

can easily convince him/herself that for the initial state |ψ 0 〉 = ∑ c λ |ϕ λ 〉, where<br />

H|ϕ λ 〉 = E λ |ϕ λ 〉, one obtains the exponential decay for ∑ |c λ | 2 δ(E −E λ ) def<br />

=<br />

p(E) = 1<br />

2π<br />

Γ<br />

(E−E 0) 2 +Γ 2 /4<br />

(the so-called Breit-Wigner distribution of energy in<br />

the initial state).<br />

The Breit-Wigner distribution could nicely explain the exponential decay in<br />

quantum mechanics, were it not for the fact that this would require understanding<br />

of why this specific distribution is so typical for quantum systems. And this<br />

is very far from being obvious. Needless to say, the answer cannot be that the<br />

Breit-Wigner is typical because the exponential decay is typical, since this would<br />

immediately lead to a tautology. It would be nice to have a good understanding<br />

for the exponential decay in the quantum mechanics, but (unfortunately) we are<br />

not going to provide any.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!