QFT proof from Peskin and Schroeder

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a specific equation from Peskin and Schroeder related to quantum field theory (QFT), specifically equation 2.33. Participants explore the mathematical steps involved in manipulating operators and integrals to arrive at the desired result, focusing on the cancellation of terms and the application of commutation relations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the cancellation of operators in the equation and seeks assistance with the proof.
  • Another participant questions the relationship between the operators \( a_{-p}^{\dagger} \) and \( a_{p} \), suggesting that a commutation relation may be relevant.
  • A different participant proposes that certain terms can be canceled because they only create or destroy particles, which would yield zero contributions.
  • Another participant explains the reasoning behind the integrals of odd functions leading to zero and suggests a method for changing variables to simplify the integrals.
  • Concerns are raised about the signs in front of terms, with a participant suggesting that they may be incorrect and warranting further verification.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correctness of the steps or the signs involved in the proof. Multiple competing views and interpretations of the mathematical manipulations remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential issues with signs and the need for careful handling of commutation relations, but do not resolve these concerns. The discussion reflects a reliance on specific definitions and assumptions that may not be explicitly stated.

Norman
Messages
895
Reaction score
4
I am unsure if this is the proper forum for this, since it is not actually homework... but here goes anyway.

I am trying to Prove Peskin and Schroeder equation 2.33( the second equal sign)


P=-\int d^3 x \pi (x) \nabla \phi (x) = \int \frac{d^3 x}{(2 \pi)^3} p a^{\dagger}_p a_p

so far what I have done:
written the fields as the momentum space quantities, done the integral over the spatial coordinates to give me the delta function and integrated over the p' variables to give me this:

The last step forces p'=-p

\int \frac{d^3}{(2 \pi)^3} \frac{p}{2} (a^{\dagger}_{-p} a_{-p} + a^{\dagger}_{-p} a^{\dagger}_p - a_p a_{-p} - a_p a^{\dagger}_p )

I don't see how these operators cancel out to give :
() = 2a^{\dagger}_p a_p

Any help would be greatly appreciated... even just a hint would be very helpfull.
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How does a_{-p}^{\dag} relate to a_{p}? I can't remember, it was a long time ago when I did QFT. There has to be a commutation relation somewhere that will allow for combining terms.
 
I think you can cancel those 2 and 3 terms in which you only create or only destroy : they will give zero.
Then the first term, you change p to -p, and the last term you use commutation to order it right (create first, destroy after !) which switch sign. Maybe a problem with an overall constant at this last step.
Sorry, I am not rigorous. I do not have the book right here.
 
The integrals of p^i a(\vec p)a(-\vec p) and p^i a^\dagger (\vec p) a^\dagger (-\vec p) are both =0 because they are odd functions of \vec p.

Suppose that

f(-\vec p)=-f(\vec p)

Now look at this:

\int d^3p f(\vec p)=-\int_{\infty}^{-\infty}d^3q f(-\vec{q})=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d^3q f(-\vec q)=-\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d^3q f(\vec q)=-\int d^3p f(\vec p)

1. Change variables, q=-p.
2. "Reverse" the integration interval.
3. Use f(-q)=-f(q).
4. Rename the integration variable to p.
5. Note that the equation is now in the form A=-A.

The same change of variables will help you deal with the first term. I think you should also check the signs in front of each term. They look wrong to me. I think they should be either -++- or +--+, but I could be wrong about that. I'm too lazy to check it carefully right now.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K