Another one on Lorentz Invariance

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Lorentz invariance in quantum field theory (QFT), specifically regarding the transformation properties of operators that form a 4-vector. Participants explore the conditions under which certain relations involving these operators and momentum 4-vectors hold true.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a relation involving the operator and questions the circumstances under which it leads to =(B/p^0)*p^mu, emphasizing the need for Lorentz invariance.
  • Another participant asks for clarification on what the operator A^{\mu} represents, indicating a need for foundational understanding.
  • A participant expresses skepticism about whether the relation holds for arbitrary 4-vector operators, suggesting that the context of A^mu being a conserved current may be significant.
  • One participant revises their initial question, focusing on the specific case of <0|A^0(t,0)|p> = B and inquires if it follows that <0|A^mu(t,0)|p> = (B/E) * p^mu, while questioning the reasoning behind the necessity of the momentum 4-vector appearing on the right-hand side.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of the relation for arbitrary operators and the reasoning behind the transformation properties, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions about the operators involved and the specific conditions under which the relations are considered valid, which have not been fully articulated.

alphaone
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Who's [itex]A^{\mu}[/itex] ? What does it stand for ?
 
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?
 
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.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K