- #1
kof9595995
- 679
- 2
Just started my way ploughing through Weinberg's book, for which my progress can be measured in lines since I got so many confusions. I suppose there'll be more confusions awaiting me, so I wish all my confusions or questions from his book will make a series, and I'll label them as "Confusion(1),(2)...from Weinberg's QFT". Hopefully this series can also benefit others, but the unfortunate thing is these posts are probably only accessible to those who have the book on hand, because his notations are quite different from others, and sometimes issues can be dispersed in the book so I can't quote everything. Anyway here goes the first question.
Page 64, eqn (2.5.5)
[itex]\Psi _{p,\sigma } \equiv N(p)U(L(p))\Psi _{k,\sigma } [/itex]
where N(p) is a normalization factor and U is a unitary operator. My question is if U is really unitary ,why do we need the normalization factor?
Edit: the title should be ... Weinberg's QFT.(unitary operator), I was having some issues with representations earlier.
Page 64, eqn (2.5.5)
[itex]\Psi _{p,\sigma } \equiv N(p)U(L(p))\Psi _{k,\sigma } [/itex]
where N(p) is a normalization factor and U is a unitary operator. My question is if U is really unitary ,why do we need the normalization factor?
Edit: the title should be ... Weinberg's QFT.(unitary operator), I was having some issues with representations earlier.