Physical mass in a quantum field theory

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relationship between physical mass and the completeness relation in quantum field theory, specifically referencing the Källén-Lehmann representation. The equation E² = p² + m² is established as a fundamental relation for free particles, where m represents the physical mass. The completeness relation is derived from the Hamiltonian's eigenvalues, confirming that the measure used for integrating over one-particle states is Lorentz invariant and not merely postulated. The distinction between physical mass and rest mass (m₀) is clarified through empirical justification and theoretical derivation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of special relativity and its equations, particularly E² = p² + m².
  • Familiarity with quantum field theory concepts, including the Källén-Lehmann representation.
  • Knowledge of Hamiltonian mechanics and eigenvalue problems in quantum systems.
  • Experience with Lorentz invariance and its implications in momentum space integration.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Källén-Lehmann representation in detail to understand its implications for two-point correlation functions.
  • Learn about the derivation of Lorentz invariant measures in quantum field theory.
  • Investigate the differences between physical mass and rest mass in various quantum field theories.
  • Explore the implications of interacting versus free theories on mass definitions and eigenvalues.
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, quantum field theorists, and advanced students in physics who seek to deepen their understanding of mass definitions and their derivations in quantum field theory.

center o bass
Messages
545
Reaction score
2
In special relativity we have the relation that for a free particle

[tex]E^2 = \vec p^2 + m_0^2[/tex]

and that also hold in relativistic free field theories (free Klein-Gordon etc) where one can show that we have a completeness relation

[tex]1 = \int \frac{d^3 \vec p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{2E_{\vec p}} |\vec p\rangle \langle \vec p|.[/tex]

Now in proving the so called 'Kallen-Lehman representation' one starts from a completeness relation of the form

[tex]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[/tex]

where it is stated that

[tex]E^2 = \vec p^2 + m^2[/tex]

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 [itex]1/2E[/itex] for the completeness relation above
actually obeys

[tex]E^2 = \vec p^2 + m^2[/tex]

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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The reason is quite simple. The Hamiltonian will have an isolated second lowest eigenvalue, the lowest being the vacuum. This state will have some four-momentum

[tex]p_{*} = (m,0,0,0,)[/tex]

All other one-particle states will be boosts of this eigenvalue, so to integrate over them you need a Lorentz invariant measure on the mass-shell corresponding to boosts of

[tex]p_{*} = (m,0,0,0,)[/tex]

The measure

[tex]\int{d^4 p \delta(p^2 - m^2)\theta(p^{0})}[/tex]

is the Lorentz invariant measure in momentum space, which is concentrated purely
on that mass-shell. It allows you to integrate over all one particle states.

You can then easily derive:

[tex]\int{d^4 p \delta(p^2 - m^2)\theta(p^{0})} = \int{d^3 p \frac{1}{2E_{p}}}[/tex]

So this is derived, not assumed. [tex]m[/tex] is the value of the second lowest eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian. The normal Källén–Lehmann derivation then shows that the two-point function has a pole at [tex]p_{*}[/tex] and also at any momenta which are a boost of it. There is no reason that this should be identical to the coefficient in front of the quadractic term in the Hamiltonian. For free theories it turns out they are, but for interacting theories they're not.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 167 ·
6
Replies
167
Views
12K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
433
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K