One stupid question about Weinberg's Volume 1

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ap_nhp
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Stupid Volume
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of a specific equation in quantum field theory from Weinberg's Volume 1, particularly focusing on the space reversal transformation and the treatment of the helicity operator. Participants are seeking clarification on the implications of the transformation as presented in the text.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses disagreement with the -\sigma in the result of the space reversal transformation as presented in equation 2.6.22.
  • Another participant explains that \sigma is an eigenvalue of the helicity operator, which changes sign under space reversal, suggesting that \sigma should also change sign.
  • A participant notes confusion regarding the changing definition of \sigma in Weinberg's work, indicating it is used as an eigenvalue of J_{3} in one context and as helicity in another.
  • One participant acknowledges their confusion but later states they understand the reason for Weinberg's definition after re-reading the material.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretation of the -\sigma term in the space reversal transformation. There are competing views regarding the definition and implications of \sigma.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted limitation in the clarity of the definitions used by Weinberg, which may contribute to the confusion among participants regarding the treatment of \sigma.

ap_nhp
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
When I read quantum field theory in Weinberg's Volume 1. In equation 2.6.22 :
[tex]P{\Psi _{p,\sigma }} = {\eta _\sigma }\exp ( \mp i\pi \sigma ){\Psi _{{\cal P}p,{-\sigma} }}[/tex]

I don't agree with the [tex]-\sigma[/tex] in the result of space reversal transformation.

Can anyone explain it for me?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ap_nhp said:
When I read quantum field theory in Weinberg's Volume 1. In equation 2.6.22 :
[tex]P{\Psi _{p,\sigma }} = {\eta _\sigma }\exp ( \mp i\pi \sigma ){\Psi _{{\cal P}p,{-\sigma} }}[/tex]

I don't agree with the [tex]-\sigma[/tex] in the result of space reversal transformation.

Can anyone explain it for me?

Thanks

[tex]\sigma[/tex] is an eigenvalue of the helicity operator [tex](\mathbf{J} /cdot \mathbf{P})P^{-1}[/tex]. This operator changes its sign under the space reversal transformation. Therefore, [tex]\sigma[/tex] also changes its sign. Don't you agree with that?

Eugene.
 
meopemuk said:
[tex]\sigma[/tex] is an eigenvalue of the helicity operator [tex](\mathbf{J} /cdot \mathbf{P})P^{-1}[/tex]. This operator changes its sign under the space reversal transformation. Therefore, [tex]\sigma[/tex] also changes its sign. Don't you agree with that?

Eugene.

Thank meopemuck. I 've read again. And I see that the definition of Weinberg is little bit change in the process. He used [tex]\sigma[/tex] in [tex]{\Psi _{k,\sigma }}[/tex] as eigenvalue of [tex]J_{3}[/tex] but in [tex]{\Psi _{p,\sigma }}[/tex] is helicity. That makes me confuse.
 
meopemuk said:
[tex]\sigma[/tex] is an eigenvalue of the helicity operator [tex](\mathbf{J} /cdot \mathbf{P})P^{-1}[/tex]. This operator changes its sign under the space reversal transformation. Therefore, [tex]\sigma[/tex] also changes its sign. Don't you agree with that?

Eugene.

Thank meopemuck. I've read Weinberg again. And I see that the definition of [tex]\sigma[/tex] change in process. Before, he used it as eigenvalue of [tex]{J _ {3}}[/tex]. And then he used it as helicity. That makes me confuse. But now I understand the reason of his definition.

Thank you one more time.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K