Question about Weinberg Book QFT1 (5.1.13)

In summary: I was confused because the extra factor made me perplexed. I wasn't sure if it was included in Weinberg's derivation or not. I was able to derive it from the unnumbered equation immediately prior to it, but I was still confused because the argument of a in that equation doesn't match the argument of u in the equation that includes the extra factor.
  • #1
PRB147
127
0
TL;DR Summary
I cannot derive Weinberg book QFT volume 1, (5.1.13), please help.
According to (5.1.6)
$$U_0(\Lambda,a)\psi_\ell^+(x)U^{-1}_0(\Lambda,a)=\sum\limits_{\ell \bar{\ell}}D_{ \ell \bar{\ell} }(\Lambda^{-1})\psi^+_{\bar{\ell}}(\Lambda x+a).$$ (5.1.6)
According to definition 5.1.4:
$$\psi^+_{\bar{\ell}}(\Lambda x+a)=\sum\limits_{\sigma n}\int d^3{\bf p
} u_\ell(\Lambda x+a;{\bf{p}},\sigma,n)a({\bf{p}},\sigma,n)$$
If we change the integral variable $${\bf p}\rightarrow \Lambda {\bf p}$$ and using Lorentz invariant $$d^3{\bf p}={p_0}{\frac{d^3(\Lambda {\bf p})}{(\Lambda p)^0}}$$, then,
$$\psi^+_{\bar{\ell}}(\Lambda x+a)=\sum\limits_{\sigma n}\int d^3(\Lambda {\bf p}) \left(\frac{p_0}{(\Lambda
p)^0}\right)u_\ell(\Lambda x+a;\Lambda{\bf{p}},\sigma,n)a(\Lambda{\bf{p}},\sigma,n)$$
If the above relation is correct, then I cannot derive equation (5.1.13).
Because of the extra factor below $$\left(\frac{p_0}{(\Lambda
p)^0}\right)$$.
It is this factor that made me perplexed, this extra factor make my derivation be different from (5.1.13), my result is $$\sqrt{\left(\frac{(\Lambda
p)^0}{p_0}\right)}$$ instead of $$\sqrt{\left(\frac{p_0}{(\Lambda
p)^0}\right)} \textrm{in book (5.1.13).}$$
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Try to read the latex guide
Edit: looks better now, thanks
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes PRB147
  • #3
As far as I can tell this extra factor is correct and included in Weinberg‘s derivation (in my edition it is mentioned at the top of p. 194, and is then included in the unnumbered equations before (5.1.13)). Do you agree with those? You have an extra

##\sqrt{(\Lambda p)^0/p^0}##

from (5.1.11), so overall you have ##\sqrt{p^0/(\Lambda p)^0}##.

Is your actual problem maybe deriving (5.1.13) from the unnumbered ones immediately prior to it (which include your extra factor)?
 
  • Like
Likes PRB147 and malawi_glenn
  • #4
Dr.AbeNikIanEdL said:
As far as I can tell this extra factor is correct and included in Weinberg‘s derivation (in my edition it is mentioned at the top of p. 194, and is then included in the unnumbered equations before (5.1.13)). Do you agree with those? You have an extra

##\sqrt{(\Lambda p)^0/p^0}##

from (5.1.11), so overall you have ##\sqrt{p^0/(\Lambda p)^0}##.

Is your actual problem maybe deriving (5.1.13) from the unnumbered ones immediately prior to it (which include your extra factor)?
Thank you very much for your quick reply, as you know the unnumbered equation in page 194 closely below the sentence "it is necessary and sufficient that" is obtained from 5.1.6 and 5.1.11. the left hand side of this unnumbered equation can be derived from 5.1.6 and above here, while the right hand side from 5.1.11. However, in both sides, there exists the same integral ##\int d^3\bf{p}##, so, both sides need to change to ##\int d^3(\Lambda {\bf p})##.
So, both sides produce an extra factor ##p^0/(\Lambda p)^0##, leading to an inconsistency withthe book. Alternatively speaking, the factor on the right side should be ##\sqrt{(\Lambda p)^0/p_0}##, which is the inverse of the factor in 5.1.13.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Ah, no for the left hand side there is not change of variables, just a renaming. You can write equation (5.1.4) as

## \Psi^+_l(x) = \sum_{\sigma,n} \int d^3(\Lambda p) u_l(x;\mathbb{p}_\Lambda,\sigma,n)a(\mathbb{p}_\Lambda,\sigma,n) ##

by just renaming the integration variable. Note also the arguments of ##u_l## and ##a## changed to ##\mathbb{p}_\Lambda##, and indeed that is also the argument of ##u## on the left hand side in the unnumbered equation. If you do the transformation, the arguments would not change and nothing like (5.1.13) would follow since the argument of ##a## for example would also not match.
 
  • Like
Likes PRB147, vanhees71 and malawi_glenn
  • #6
Thank you! Yes, you are right.
 

1. What is the main topic of Weinberg's book QFT1?

The main topic of Weinberg's book QFT1 is quantum field theory, which is a theoretical framework used to describe the behavior of subatomic particles and their interactions.

2. What is the significance of the notation "5.1.13" in the question?

The notation "5.1.13" refers to the specific section, subsection, and equation number in Weinberg's book QFT1 that the question is referring to. This notation is commonly used to easily locate and reference specific parts of a book or text.

3. What is the purpose of section 5.1.13 in Weinberg's book QFT1?

Section 5.1.13 in Weinberg's book QFT1 discusses the concept of renormalization, which is a mathematical technique used to remove infinities from calculations in quantum field theory. This section is important in understanding the foundations of quantum field theory and its applications.

4. How does the concept of renormalization relate to quantum field theory?

Renormalization is a key concept in quantum field theory as it allows for the removal of infinite values that arise in calculations. This is necessary because the equations in quantum field theory often produce infinities, which cannot be physically meaningful. By using renormalization, physicists are able to obtain finite and meaningful results from their calculations.

5. Is Weinberg's book QFT1 suitable for beginners in the field of quantum field theory?

Weinberg's book QFT1 is a well-respected and comprehensive text on quantum field theory, but it is not recommended for beginners in the field. It assumes a strong background in mathematics and physics, and may be difficult for those without prior knowledge of the subject. It is better suited for advanced students or researchers in the field of theoretical physics.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
5
Views
985
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
975
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
548
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
9
Views
795
Back
Top