center o bass
- 545
- 2
In special relativity we have the relation that for a free particle
E^2 = \vec p^2 + m_0^2
and that also hold in relativistic free field theories (free Klein-Gordon etc) where one can show that we have a completeness relation
1 = \int \frac{d^3 \vec p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{2E_{\vec p}} |\vec p\rangle \langle \vec p|.
Now in proving the so called 'Kallen-Lehman representation' one starts from a completeness relation of the form
1 = |\Omega\rangle \langle \Omega| + \int \frac{d^3 \vec p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{2E_{\vec p}} |\vec p\rangle \langle \vec p|_{\text{one particle}} + \text{two particle} + \ldots
where it is stated that
E^2 = \vec p^2 + m^2
where m is the physical mass of the particle. This leads to the result that the two point correlation function (as a function of the momentum) has a pole at the physical mass of the particle.
But isn't this really just a definition of the physical mass of the particle? Do we have any justification to say that E in the coefficient 1/2E for the completeness relation above
actually obeys
E^2 = \vec p^2 + m^2
or do we just postulate it? If so what are the empirical reasons that we call this the physical mass; how do we know that we actually measure m and not m_0?
Thanks to anyone that can shed some light on this.
E^2 = \vec p^2 + m_0^2
and that also hold in relativistic free field theories (free Klein-Gordon etc) where one can show that we have a completeness relation
1 = \int \frac{d^3 \vec p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{2E_{\vec p}} |\vec p\rangle \langle \vec p|.
Now in proving the so called 'Kallen-Lehman representation' one starts from a completeness relation of the form
1 = |\Omega\rangle \langle \Omega| + \int \frac{d^3 \vec p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{2E_{\vec p}} |\vec p\rangle \langle \vec p|_{\text{one particle}} + \text{two particle} + \ldots
where it is stated that
E^2 = \vec p^2 + m^2
where m is the physical mass of the particle. This leads to the result that the two point correlation function (as a function of the momentum) has a pole at the physical mass of the particle.
But isn't this really just a definition of the physical mass of the particle? Do we have any justification to say that E in the coefficient 1/2E for the completeness relation above
actually obeys
E^2 = \vec p^2 + m^2
or do we just postulate it? If so what are the empirical reasons that we call this the physical mass; how do we know that we actually measure m and not m_0?
Thanks to anyone that can shed some light on this.