Field transformations in Weinberg's QToF

brodekind
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Ahoy,

I was reading parts of Weinberg's QFT book vol. I and was surprised at his definition of a scalar field or Lorentz transformations on fields in general. Usually (e.g. Maggiore, Modern Intro to QFT) I see the scalar field defined as Lorentz transforming via
<br /> \Phi&#039;(x&#039;) = \Phi(x) \text{ with } x&#039; = \Lambda x<br />
meaning
<br /> \Phi&#039;(x) = \Phi(\Lambda^{-1}x)<br />
and the vector field as
<br /> V&#039;(x&#039;) = \Lambda V(x)<br />
meaning
<br /> V&#039;(x) = \Lambda V(\Lambda^{-1}x)<br />

Weinberg on the other hand defines a scalar field (eq. (5.1.2)) as
<br /> U(\Lambda) \Phi(x) U(\Lambda)^{-1} = \Phi(\Lambda x)<br />
and in general in eqs. (5.1.16), (5.1.17)
<br /> U(\Lambda) \Psi(x) U(\Lambda)^{-1} = D(\Lambda^{-1}) \Psi(\Lambda x)<br />
with D a transformation matrix corresponding to the representation of the Lorentz group \Psi furnishes.

So if I were to interpret U(\Lambda) \Phi(x) U(\Lambda)^{-1} naturally as \Phi&#039;(x), I see that Weinberg transforms contrarily to the usual definition with the primes. Why is this sensible? Is it related to the 'prime' definition acting on classical fields, whereas Weinberg's definition is on operator fields?
I can't wrap my head around it. All books that I know of transform the states the same way, so there is a problem if they transform the field operators contrarily. Having thought about it for some time, I am unable to resolve this (apparent) paradox and would be glad if somebody could shed some light on this issue.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What Weinberg calls x', other call x. So, you can take \Lambda^{ -1 } of Weingerg's to be the \Lambda of the other textbooks.
 
It's the so-called <active> vs. <passive> point of view when describing symmetries of space-time. Read the relevant discussion in Fonda and Ghirardi's 1970 text on quantum symmetries.
 
Thanks for your inputs.
Well, I thought about active versus passive. But it seems to me that he is transforming the states actively. i.e.
<br /> D(\Lambda) |p\rangle = \text{something}|\Lambda p\rangle,<br />
only the fields passively. Next time in the library I will have a look at that book though.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top