AG-2026.06-1332·hep-th·cross-listed: gr-qchep-phquant-ph
Ghosts versus Unstable Particles in Quantum Field Theory
Authors
- Luca Buoninfante
Abstract
We elucidate the physical nature of ghosts above the multi-particle threshold by contrasting them with unstable particles in quantum field theory. We first consider the asymptotic formulation, where ordinary positive-norm one-particle states can be unstable and decay, whereas ghosts survive asymptotically without decaying, yet admit no particle interpretation due to interference with the multi-particle component which masks the negative-norm one-particle state. This distinction originates from two different analytic structures of the dressed propagator, whose complex conjugate poles lie in the first or second Riemann sheet in the ghost or ordinary case, respectively. Ghost resonances are, in principle, phenomenologically distinguishable from ordinary ones, being narrower and exhibiting weaker interference between positive- and negative-energy peaks. We then formulate the quantum field theory in a finite interval of time and, working within a suitable approximation for the dressed propagator, find that finite-time effects amplify differences in the resonant behavior and give rise to new features, such as higher peaks in ghost resonances. Distinct temporal regimes are also identified: for times shorter than the inverse width, an approximate free-particle description is valid, whereas at later times interactions and interference effects dominate, leading to decay or multi-particle masking. Complex poles in the dressed propagator emerge only at late times and become complex-conjugate pairs asymptotically, determining the asymptotic dynamics. This study supports the absence of freely propagating ghost particles in the asymptotic limit.
Submitted
16 June 2026yesterday
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2606.18349
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.