Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

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

  1. Nov 1, 2011 #1

    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
    [itex]\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^32E(\vec{k})} = \frac{d^3k'}{(2\pi)^32E'(\vec{k'})}[/itex] where the primed & unprimed quantities denote different frames.

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

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

    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 [itex]\delta(x^2 - x_0^2) = \frac{1}{2|x|}(\delta(x-x_0) + \delta(x+x_0))[/itex] with k's and m's: [itex]\delta(k^2 - m^2) = \frac{1}{2|k|}(\delta(k-m) + \delta(k+m))[/itex]
    to get an apparently Lorentz invariant expression: [itex] \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) [/itex]
    but I'm not sure where this gets me, other than guessing that
    [itex] \delta(k^2 - m^2)\theta(k_0) [/itex] 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.
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 2, 2011 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Education Advisor

    You should recognize that [itex]d^4k\ \delta(k^2-m^2)\theta(k_0)[/itex] is manifestly Lorentz invariant because [itex]k^2 = k^\mu k_\mu[/itex] is invariant.

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

    Intuitively, you can think of the volume [itex]d^3k[/itex] being reduced by a factor [itex]\gamma[/itex] due to length contraction while E(k) is reduced by the same factor due to time dilation, so their ratio is invariant.
  4. Nov 2, 2011 #3
    right, so, if I'm not mistaken, [itex]k^\mu = (k_0, k_1, k_2, k_3)[/itex] and [itex]k_\mu = (k_0, -k_1, -k_2, -k_3)[/itex]. So, [itex]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[/itex].
    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 [itex]\theta(k_0)[/itex] or the d4k? What about them says Lorentz invariant?

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

    Actually, can I say that [itex] d^4k = d^3k dk_0 [/itex]?
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2011
  5. Nov 2, 2011 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Education Advisor

    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.
    Think about the coordinate transformation [itex]k'^\mu = \Lambda^\mu{}_\nu k^\nu[/itex] where [itex]\Lambda^\mu{}_\nu[/itex] is a Lorentz transformation. How are the volume elements related? What about the signs of k0 of k'0?
    Yes, [itex] d^4k = d^3k\:dk_0 [/itex]
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook