acipsen
- 3
- 0
Hi,
I am reading through Weinberg's "Quantum Theory of Fields" (vol. 1)
and I am somewhat confused about the signs in the cluster decomposition
of the S-matrix. Specifically, referring to eq. 4.3.2, let's say the term
coming from the partition
\alpha \to \alpha_1\alpha_2,\beta \to \beta_1\beta_2
would be
+S^C_{\beta_1,\alpha_1}S^C_{\beta_2,\alpha_2}.
Lets now assume that permuting \alpha_1,\alpha_2 gives a sign, while permuting \beta_1,\beta_2 doesn't,
then the equivalent partition
\alpha \to \alpha_2\alpha_1,\beta \to \beta_2\beta_1
would give rise to the term
-S^C_{\beta_2,\alpha_2}S^C_{\beta_1,\alpha_1},
i.e. minus what I had before. This clearly cannot be right, but I'm not sure where
the flaw in my reasoning is. Does it have something to do with conservation
of (-1)^F, where F is the number of Fermions?
I would be grateful for any hints. And no, this is not homework
, the course I'm
following is using Peskin & Schroeder.
Regards,
Asger
I am reading through Weinberg's "Quantum Theory of Fields" (vol. 1)
and I am somewhat confused about the signs in the cluster decomposition
of the S-matrix. Specifically, referring to eq. 4.3.2, let's say the term
coming from the partition
\alpha \to \alpha_1\alpha_2,\beta \to \beta_1\beta_2
would be
+S^C_{\beta_1,\alpha_1}S^C_{\beta_2,\alpha_2}.
Lets now assume that permuting \alpha_1,\alpha_2 gives a sign, while permuting \beta_1,\beta_2 doesn't,
then the equivalent partition
\alpha \to \alpha_2\alpha_1,\beta \to \beta_2\beta_1
would give rise to the term
-S^C_{\beta_2,\alpha_2}S^C_{\beta_1,\alpha_1},
i.e. minus what I had before. This clearly cannot be right, but I'm not sure where
the flaw in my reasoning is. Does it have something to do with conservation
of (-1)^F, where F is the number of Fermions?
I would be grateful for any hints. And no, this is not homework

following is using Peskin & Schroeder.
Regards,
Asger