Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Another one on Lorentz Invariance

  1. Feb 26, 2007 #1
    I recently read an author making the following argument in QFT:
    if <m|A^0(t,0)|n>=B then <m|A^mu(t,0)|n>=(B/p^0)*p^mu by Lorentz invariance. Can anybody tell me under which circumstances this holds and how it comes about? I understand that <m|A^mu(t,0)|n> had to transform as a 4-vector but why should it be the momentum 4-vector?
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 26, 2007 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Who's [itex] A^{\mu} [/itex] ? What does it stand for ?
  4. Feb 26, 2007 #3
    That is part of my question: Does the relation hold for arbitrary operators which form a 4-vector? I think not, but maybe I am wrong. The context in which I saw the argument, A^mu was a conserved current but otherwise arbitrary. Does that help?
  5. Mar 1, 2007 #4
    Ok I think I understand the argument partly now and must admit that the question did not really make sense the way I phrased it earlier. What I should have asked is: Suppose we have <0|A^0(t,0)|p> = B where <0| is the vacuum |p> is an eigenstate of momentum p and A^0(t,0) is the zero component of an operator forming a 4-vector evaluated at x_i=0. Given this does it then follow that <0|A^mu(t,0)|p> = (B/E) * p^mu ? I think it should and I think the argument goes something like this: the LHS only really depends on p^mu and therefore the only 4-vector that can possibly appear on the RHS is the momentum 4-vector p^mu. However this argument is not totally clear to me as A^mu itself appears on the LHS and so why should the RHS not be something proportional to that? Anyway if you can explain this argument to me pleae let me know.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook