How Can the S-Matrix Transform Like Free Particle States in Weinberg's QFT?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter diraq
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book S-matrix
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the transformation properties of the S-matrix in the context of quantum field theory (QFT) as described in Weinberg's texts. Participants explore the implications of Lorentz invariance for in- and out-states, particularly in relation to their treatment as eigenstates of the full Hamiltonian despite interactions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the S-matrix is defined as the inner product of in- and out-states and questions how these states can be transformed like free particle states given that they are eigenstates of a Hamiltonian with interactions.
  • Another participant argues that the transformation rule for free particle states does not apply to in- and out-states in general, citing Weinberg's text, which states that this rule applies only in scattering processes at temporal infinities.
  • A participant expresses confusion about the nature of in- and out-states, noting that while they are considered non-interacting, they are still eigenstates of the full Hamiltonian, leading to questions about the treatment of the Hamiltonian in asymptotic conditions.
  • Further elaboration is provided on how in- and out-states appear non-interacting only to observers at temporal infinity, with a reference to how they can have components along multiparticle states at finite times.
  • One participant draws parallels to non-relativistic quantum mechanics, suggesting that similar methods are used in scattering theory as discussed in Sakurai's book.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of the transformation rule for in- and out-states, with some asserting that it does not hold in general, while others seek clarification on the implications of Weinberg's treatment of these states. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the interpretation of the S-matrix and the nature of interactions at different temporal limits.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the dependence on the asymptotic hypothesis and the time-independent treatment of the Hamiltonian, which may lead to confusion regarding the nature of interactions and the definition of eigenstates in this context.

diraq
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Hi All,

The S-matrix is defined as the inner product of the in- and out-states, as in Eq. (3.2.1) in Weinberg's QFT vol 1:
S_{\beta\alpha}=(\Psi_\beta^-,\Psi_\alpha^+)

When talking about the Lorentz invariance of S-matrix, the Lorentz transformation induced unitary operator U(\Lambda,a) is applied both on the in- and out-states, and the transformation rule is the same as that for free particle states, i.e., Eq. (3.1.1).

However, since \Psi_\alpha^\pm are the eigenstates of the full Hamiltonian with a non-zero interaction term, how can \Psi_\alpha^\pm be transformed according to the same rule for the states composed of free particles? In the paragraph under Eq. (3.1.5), Weinberg explicitly indicates that the rule of Eq. (3.1.1) can only be applied to non-interacting particle states.

I appreciate any help from you to eliminate my miss/non-understanding. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think actually that 3.1.1 doesn't apply to the in and out states although the notation seems to indicate this. If you read the paragraph under 3.1.7 Weinberg says:

"On the other hand, the transformation rule (3.1.1) does apply in scattering processes at t\rightarrow \pm \infty."​

In other words in general it does not apply to In and Out states. In and Out states appear non-interacting only to observers at t=\pm\infty
 
Thank you very much.

I am still confused. In- and out-states are non-interacting but according to Weinberg they are still the eigenstates of the full Hamiltonian.

It looks like that Weinberg took a different perspective. The asymptotic hypothesis that will turn off the interaction at t\rightarrow\pm\infty is not included here. The Hamiltonian is is time dependent in asymptotic hypothesis, but Weinberg treats it as time-independent--only the state vector evolves with time.

bobloblaw said:
I think actually that 3.1.1 doesn't apply to the in and out states although the notation seems to indicate this. If you read the paragraph under 3.1.7 Weinberg says:

"On the other hand, the transformation rule (3.1.1) does apply in scattering processes at t\rightarrow \pm \infty."​

In other words in general it does not apply to In and Out states. In and Out states appear non-interacting only to observers at t=\pm\infty
 
I am still confused. In- and out-states are non-interacting but according to Weinberg they are still the eigenstates of the full Hamiltonian

In and Out states only appear non-interecting to observers sitting at temporal infinity. To all other observers they appear to be "interacting" in the sense that they no longer have definite particle content. That is how they are able to be eigenstates of the full Hamiltonian. Equation (3.1.12) makes this more precise. The point is that we can find states that satisfy (3.1.12) despite the Hamiltonian being time independent, ie we can find states that look like they are non-interacting to observers at infinity.

If you look at eq. (3.1.7) you can see that at any finite t the In and Out states have components along every multiparticle state but at t\rightarrow\pm\infty \Psi^\mp \rightarrow\Phi. Also as V\rightarrow 0 we also get \Psi^\mp \rightarrow\Phi. So in this sense t\rightarrow\pm\infty is equivalent to V\rightarrow 0.

This method of doing things appears also in scattering in non-relativistic QM. For example it is discussed in Sakurai's book in Chapter 7: Scattering theory.
 
Thank you very much. I think I have got the idea from your help.
 
sweet! glad I could help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K