QFT, Noether and Invariance, Complex fields, Equal mass

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around a homework problem related to quantum field theory (QFT), focusing on the transformation of complex fields and their invariance under certain conditions. The user is struggling with part d of the problem, specifically whether a transformation can be a function of both fields. They have analyzed the real and imaginary components of the fields and noted that the symmetry can lead to cancellation in the mass terms, suggesting a potential simplification using sine or cosine functions. A response clarifies that transformations can indeed involve multiple fields, and references to solution manuals for related topics in QFT and string theory are provided for further assistance. The conversation emphasizes the importance of having reference materials for tackling complex QFT questions.
binbagsss
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
12

Homework Statement



Question attached:

mm11=m2.png


Hi
I am pretty stuck on part d.

I've broken the fields into real and imaginary parts as asked to and tried to compare where they previously canceled to the situation now- see below.

However I can't really see this giving me a hint of any sort unless the transformation of a field can be a function of both fields- but I don't believe this is allowed? Please correct me if I am wrong- please see below.

Homework Equations



please see below

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]

I've broken the fields into real and imaginary parts as asked to and tried to compare where they previously canceled to the sitatuation now. I've wrote ##Im (\phi*)= -Im (\phi) ## to save introducing ##(/phi*) ## ofc. I see that the extra symmetries due to ##m_1=m_2## must be s.t the symmetries of ##\phi_1## and ##\phi_2## can now cancel via summation in the ##m^2## term rather than having to have the invariance hold sepereately, whilst at the same time preserving the symmetry of the derivaitve terms. I therefore suspect the solution may be ##sin ## or ##cos## now sufficing alone without the exponential, separately being able to have the imaginary and real parts cancelling.
Looking at the ##m_1^2## for ##\phi_1## term previously I had (the first bracket corresponding to ##phi_1## transformation and the second ##phi*_1## and so the transformation is negative exponential in the second bracket) :
##m_1^2 (cos \alpha Re(\phi) - sin \alpha Im(\phi) + i sin \alpha Re(\phi) + i cos \alpha Im(\phi)) . (cos \alpha Re(\phi) - sin \alpha Im(\phi) + i cos \alpha Im(\phi)) + i sin \alpha Re(\phi) ##

and the result of expanding this out and looking at the real parts is that the cos^2 sin^2 identity is used to get ##Im(\phi)^2+Re(\phi)^2## hence invariant and the cross-terms vanish (and I suspect the same is true for the imaginary parts).

I can't really think how to use this as a hint though, unless you are a allowed a ##phi_1## transformation that is a function of both ##phi_1## and ##phi_2##, but I don't think this is allowed?

a thousand thanks to you my friend.
 

Attachments

  • mm11=m2.png
    mm11=m2.png
    23 KB · Views: 952
Physics news on Phys.org
You can find this exercise and its solution in several references in the web, I believe it appears in P&S, Srednicki in other words with a good search through google, you can find a solution to this exercise.
In fact this exercise appears in Radovanovic's problem book, problem 5.11.
 
MathematicalPhysicist said:
You can find this exercise and its solution in several references in the web, I believe it appears in P&S, Srednicki in other words with a good search through google, you can find a solution to this exercise.
In fact this exercise appears in Radovanovic's problem book, problem 5.11.

many thanks for your reply, I had no idea about this book !
 
however, not to sure why no one replied to my question can the transformation be a function of both fields, quick question, yes or no answer, would have helped alot, but hey..
 
binbagsss said:
however, not to sure why no one replied to my question can the transformation be a function of both fields, quick question, yes or no answer, would have helped alot, but hey..
With these type of QFT questions it's sort of impossible to solve without a reference at hand... :-D
 
binbagsss said:
however, not to sure why no one replied to my question can the transformation be a function of both fields, quick question, yes or no answer, would have helped alot, but hey..
Yes, in general it is possible to do a transfer that contains all the fields.
 
MathematicalPhysicist said:
With these type of QFT questions it's sort of impossible to solve without a reference at hand... :-D[/QUOTE
I don't suppose you know whether a similar sort of solution book may exist for string theory ?

Thanks ( in particular t-duality, massless states ) ?
 
You might be interested in the solutions to Zwiebach's book on string theory.
 
  • Like
Likes binbagsss
There's also a partial solution manual to Polchinski's 2-set volume, just type you know what into google.
 
  • Like
Likes binbagsss

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K