Question about coefficients of massless quantum fields

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical treatment of massless quantum fields as presented in Weinberg's QFT. Participants explore the definitions and properties of coefficients related to massless fields, particularly focusing on the equations governing the coefficients \( u \) and \( v \) and their complex conjugates.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the equations for massless fields and the conditions for coefficients \( u \) and \( v \), questioning the validity of taking complex conjugates of these equations.
  • The participant expresses uncertainty about whether the conditions \( D_{\bar{l}l}(L(p))^*=D_{\bar{l}l}(L(p)) \) and \( D_{\bar{l}l}(W)^*=D_{\bar{l}l}(W) \) necessarily hold true, seeking alternative proofs for Weinberg's claim.
  • Other participants provide feedback on the complexity of the question, suggesting it requires a graduate-level understanding of quantum field theory.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the validity of the conditions for the coefficients or the proof of Weinberg's claim. Participants acknowledge the complexity of the topic and the need for a deeper understanding.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the assumptions required for the discussion, including a background in quantum field theory and group theory, which may limit the accessibility of the topic.

hgandh
Messages
26
Reaction score
2
From Chapter 5.9 Weinberg's QFT Vol 1, massless fields are defined as:
\psi_l(x)=(2\pi)^{-3/2}\int d^{3}p\sum_{\sigma}[k a(p,\sigma)u_l(p,\sigma)e^{ipx}+\lambda a^{c\dagger}(p,\sigma)v_l(p,\sigma)e^{-ipx}]
With coefficients defined by the conditions:
u_{\bar{l}}(p,\sigma) =\sqrt{|k|/p^0} \sum_{l}D_{\bar{l}l}(L(p))u_l(k,\sigma)
v_{\bar{l}}(p,\sigma) =\sqrt{|k|/p^0} \sum_{l}D_{\bar{l}l}(L(p))v_l(k,\sigma)
u_{\bar{l}}(p,\sigma) exp(i\sigma \theta(k,W) =\sqrt{|k|/p^0} \sum_{l}D_{\bar{l}l}(W)u_l(k,\sigma)
v_{\bar{l}}(p,\sigma) exp(-i\sigma \theta(k,W) =\sqrt{|k|/p^0} \sum_{l}D_{\bar{l}l}(W)v_l(k,\sigma)
Where D_{\bar{l}l}(L(p)) is a general, irreducible representation of the homogenous Lorentz group restricted to standard boosts, L(p) that take the standard momentum k = (0,0,k) into arbitrary momentum p and D_{\bar{l}l}(W) is the Lorentz representation restricted to the little group for massless particles. Now Weinberg says that the equations for v are just the complex conjugates of the equations for u so that we can adjust the constants k and \lambda so that
v_l(p,\sigma)=u_l(p,\sigma)^*
However, taking the complex conjugates of the equations of u:
u_{\bar{l}}(p,\sigma)^* =\sqrt{|k|/p^0} \sum_{l}D_{\bar{l}l}(L(p))^*u_l(k,\sigma)^*
u_{\bar{l}}(p,\sigma)^* exp(-i\sigma \theta(k,W) =\sqrt{|k|/p^0} \sum_{l}D_{\bar{l}l}(W)^*u_l(k,\sigma)^*

This is where I get stuck. The above will be true if D_{\bar{l}l}(L(p))^*=D_{\bar{l}l}(L(p)) and D_{\bar{l}l}(W)^*=D_{\bar{l}l}(W). However, this does seem to necessarily be true. Is there another way to prove Weinberg's claim?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
@hgandh , this is not a "B" level question. It probably needs to be "A", which assumes a graduate level knowledge of the subject area. What is your background in this subject area?
 
PeterDonis said:
@hgandh , this is not a "B" level question. It probably needs to be "A", which assumes a graduate level knowledge of the subject area. What is your background in this subject area?
I should have marked it as "A". I am studying QFT currently with all of the assumed pre requisites and some group theory.
 
hgandh said:
I should have marked it as "A".

I have changed the thread level to "A".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K