Ryder, QFT, 1985, pg. 40, Eq. (2.69) K = sigma?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Living_Dog
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Qft Sigma
Living_Dog
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
Ryder, QFT, 1985, pg. 40, Eq. (2.69) K = sigma??

For the similar page in the 2nd edition, turn page 37 at this http://books.google.com/books?id=nn...resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false".

He states that K = +/- i/2 sigma.

How is this possible since the Pauli matrices are 2x2's and the K's are 4x4's. So ok, maybe he doubled up on the sigma's, but still, K_x != sigma_x, etc.

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org


37 and 38 aren't visible in the preview. There's no K on the pages I can see.
 


They are different K's. The 4x4 ones are the generators of boosts in spacetime. The 2x2 ones are the generators of boosts in spin 1/2 space. He most definitely did not double up on the sigmas here. He's just using the same letter since they are both generators of boosts.
 


matonski said:
They are different K's. The 4x4 ones are the generators of boosts in spacetime. The 2x2 ones are the generators of boosts in spin 1/2 space. He most definitely did not double up on the sigmas here. He's just using the same letter since they are both generators of boosts.

Well then, what does this mean?

BTW, I moved on knowing how Ryder makes statements that are clear to him (and strong students) that leaves me in the dark. You know my previous post about the mystery with the \xi? It turns out that the way I described it in the end - as being utterly unnecessary - was correct. He dropped it in the 2nd edition!

So this post is more in the way of a request to make the Ryder text less of a book on magic and more of a book on physics. (NOTE: texts are horrible teachers. They have no room for clearly EXPLAINING the material. I stopped buying books once I realized this. Now I pick one and struggle with it. Also PF is a very big help in this regard. So if no one has an answer then this bit of Ryder will remain in the dark... for me.)

I just checked the link. Page 37 is visible and the equation is at the bottom. Here is a snap of what I see:
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/6726/ryder2edpg37.th.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Fredrik said:
37 and 38 aren't visible in the preview. There's no K on the pages I can see.
Visibility (of free parts of a commercial book) strongly depends on where in the world your computer is.
 
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...
Back
Top