Proving the Lorentz invariance of an integration measure? QFT related?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the Lorentz invariance of an integration measure in quantum field theory (QFT). Participants analyze the expression \(\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3 2E(\vec{k})}\) and its transformation under Lorentz transformations, concluding that while \(E(\vec{k})\) is not Lorentz invariant, the overall expression may still exhibit invariance due to the interplay of the components involved. The delta function \(\delta(k^2 - m^2)\) and the Heaviside step function \(\theta(k_0)\) are identified as key components that contribute to the Lorentz invariance of the measure \(d^4k \delta(k^2 - m^2) \theta(k_0)\).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lorentz transformations and invariance in physics
  • Familiarity with quantum field theory (QFT) concepts
  • Knowledge of delta functions and their properties
  • Basic understanding of four-vectors and their metrics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of delta functions in quantum field theory
  • Research Lorentz transformations and their implications on physical quantities
  • Explore the role of the Heaviside step function in integration measures
  • Learn about the derivation and application of four-vector invariants
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, particularly those specializing in quantum field theory, theoretical physicists, and students studying relativistic physics will benefit from this discussion.

jeebs
Messages
314
Reaction score
5
qftproblem21.jpg


So, first off, I'm thinking Lorentz invariant quantities are the same in any inertial frames S and S' regardless of their relative velocity.

I'm thinking I need to show that
\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^32E(\vec{k})} = \frac{d^3k'}{(2\pi)^32E'(\vec{k'})} where the primed & unprimed quantities denote different frames.

We also have E(\vec{k}) = \sqrt{\vec{k}^2 + m^2} in the denominator. This isn't Lorentz invariant - the mass term is, but the 3 - momentum \vec{p} = \hbar \vec{k} is not, therefore E is not.

E \neq E' where E'(\vec{k'}) = \sqrt{\vec{k}'^2 + m^2}.

This is making me think that neither E nor d3k are Lorentz invariant, so that when they are used in this fraction, the Lorentz invariance from each one somehow cancels out overall.

Then we come to the hint. I 'm really not sure what to make of this, I mean, I can write \delta(x^2 - x_0^2) = \frac{1}{2|x|}(\delta(x-x_0) + \delta(x+x_0)) with k's and m's: \delta(k^2 - m^2) = \frac{1}{2|k|}(\delta(k-m) + \delta(k+m))
to get an apparently Lorentz invariant expression: \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^3}\delta(k^2 - m^2)\theta(k_0) = \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{1}{2|k|}(\delta(k-m) + \delta(k+m))\theta(k_0)
but I'm not sure where this gets me, other than guessing that
\delta(k^2 - m^2)\theta(k_0) is also Lorentz invariant seeing as I am told d4k is.

I have no idea how to proceed with this. I don't know what to make of the delta functions either.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You should recognize that d^4k\ \delta(k^2-m^2)\theta(k_0) is manifestly Lorentz invariant because k^2 = k^\mu k_\mu is invariant.

The idea here is to note that k^2-m^2 = k_0^2-\mathbf{k}^2-m^2 and to do the integral over k0.

Intuitively, you can think of the volume d^3k being reduced by a factor \gamma due to length contraction while E(k) is reduced by the same factor due to time dilation, so their ratio is invariant.
 
vela said:
You should recognize that d^4k\ \delta(k^2-m^2)\theta(k_0) is manifestly Lorentz invariant because k^2 = k^\mu k_\mu is invariant.

right, so, if I'm not mistaken, k^\mu = (k_0, k_1, k_2, k_3) and k_\mu = (k_0, -k_1, -k_2, -k_3). So, k^2 = k^\mu k_\mu = (k_0, k_1, k_2, k_3).(k_0, -k_1, -k_2, -k_3) = k_0^2 - k_1^2 -k_2^2 -k_3^2 = k_0^2 - \vec{k}^2.
Is there some reason why I should instantly recognise this as an invariant quantity?
Do you always get an invariant quantity if you take any 4-vector and do this with it?
Also, what am I supposed to make of the \theta(k_0) or the d4k? What about them says Lorentz invariant?

vela said:
The idea here is to note that k^2-m^2 = k_0^2-\mathbf{k}^2-m^2 and to do the integral over k0.

I'm meant to be computing \frac{1}{(2\pi)^3}∫ \delta(k_0^2 - \vec{k}^2 - m^2)\theta(k_0)d^4k right?
I'm struggling to be change the d^4k into something involving a dk0.
Can I start off by saying dk^\mu = (dk_0, dk_1, dk_2, dk_3)?

Actually, can I say that d^4k = d^3k dk_0?
 
Last edited:
jeebs said:
right, so, if I'm not mistaken, k^\mu = (k_0, k_1, k_2, k_3) and k_\mu = (k_0, -k_1, -k_2, -k_3). So, k^2 = k^\mu k_\mu = (k_0, k_1, k_2, k_3).(k_0, -k_1, -k_2, -k_3) = k_0^2 - k_1^2 -k_2^2 -k_3^2 = k_0^2 - \vec{k}^2.
Is there some reason why I should instantly recognise this as an invariant quantity?
Do you always get an invariant quantity if you take any 4-vector and do this with it?
Yes, the product of any two four-vectors, including a four-vector with itself, is an invariant. It's analogous to the regular dot product being invariant under rotations.
Also, what am I supposed to make of the \theta(k_0) or the d4k? What about them says Lorentz invariant?
Think about the coordinate transformation k'^\mu = \Lambda^\mu{}_\nu k^\nu where \Lambda^\mu{}_\nu is a Lorentz transformation. How are the volume elements related? What about the signs of k0 of k'0?
I'm meant to be computing \frac{1}{(2\pi)^3}∫ \delta(k_0^2 - \vec{k}^2 - m^2)\theta(k_0)d^4k right?
I'm struggling to be change the d^4k into something involving a dk0.
Can I start off by saying dk^\mu = (dk_0, dk_1, dk_2, dk_3)?

Actually, can I say that d^4k = d^3k dk_0?
Yes, d^4k = d^3k\:dk_0
 

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K