Question about Weinberg Book QFT1 (5.1.13)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter PRB147
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book Weinberg
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the derivation of equation (5.1.13) from Weinberg's book on Quantum Field Theory, specifically addressing the extra factor introduced during the transformation of variables in integrals. The participants analyze the implications of changing the variable from ${\bf p}$ to $\Lambda {\bf p}$ and the resulting Lorentz invariant measure. It is concluded that the extra factor $\left(\frac{p_0}{(\Lambda p)^0}\right)$ is indeed correct and necessary for the derivation, leading to a discrepancy with the expected result in (5.1.13). The conversation emphasizes the importance of careful variable renaming and the consistency of arguments in integrals.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Quantum Field Theory concepts, particularly Lorentz transformations.
  • Familiarity with the notation and equations presented in Weinberg's "Quantum Field Theory".
  • Knowledge of integral transformations in the context of physics.
  • Ability to interpret and manipulate mathematical expressions in LaTeX format.
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the derivation of equation (5.1.13) in Weinberg's "Quantum Field Theory" for clarity on the extra factor.
  • Study the implications of Lorentz invariance in quantum field theory, focusing on integral measures.
  • Examine the unnumbered equations preceding (5.1.13) for insights into variable transformations.
  • Learn about the significance of variable renaming in mathematical physics to avoid inconsistencies.
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in theoretical physics, particularly those focusing on Quantum Field Theory and the mathematical foundations of particle physics. This discussion is beneficial for anyone seeking to understand the nuances of derivations in Weinberg's text.

PRB147
Messages
122
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
I cannot derive Weinberg book QFT volume 1, (5.1.13), please help.
According to (5.1.6)
$$U_0(\Lambda,a)\psi_\ell^+(x)U^{-1}_0(\Lambda,a)=\sum\limits_{\ell \bar{\ell}}D_{ \ell \bar{\ell} }(\Lambda^{-1})\psi^+_{\bar{\ell}}(\Lambda x+a).$$ (5.1.6)
According to definition 5.1.4:
$$\psi^+_{\bar{\ell}}(\Lambda x+a)=\sum\limits_{\sigma n}\int d^3{\bf p
} u_\ell(\Lambda x+a;{\bf{p}},\sigma,n)a({\bf{p}},\sigma,n)$$
If we change the integral variable $${\bf p}\rightarrow \Lambda {\bf p}$$ and using Lorentz invariant $$d^3{\bf p}={p_0}{\frac{d^3(\Lambda {\bf p})}{(\Lambda p)^0}}$$, then,
$$\psi^+_{\bar{\ell}}(\Lambda x+a)=\sum\limits_{\sigma n}\int d^3(\Lambda {\bf p}) \left(\frac{p_0}{(\Lambda
p)^0}\right)u_\ell(\Lambda x+a;\Lambda{\bf{p}},\sigma,n)a(\Lambda{\bf{p}},\sigma,n)$$
If the above relation is correct, then I cannot derive equation (5.1.13).
Because of the extra factor below $$\left(\frac{p_0}{(\Lambda
p)^0}\right)$$.
It is this factor that made me perplexed, this extra factor make my derivation be different from (5.1.13), my result is $$\sqrt{\left(\frac{(\Lambda
p)^0}{p_0}\right)}$$ instead of $$\sqrt{\left(\frac{p_0}{(\Lambda
p)^0}\right)} \textrm{in book (5.1.13).}$$
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Try to read the latex guide
Edit: looks better now, thanks
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PRB147
As far as I can tell this extra factor is correct and included in Weinberg‘s derivation (in my edition it is mentioned at the top of p. 194, and is then included in the unnumbered equations before (5.1.13)). Do you agree with those? You have an extra

##\sqrt{(\Lambda p)^0/p^0}##

from (5.1.11), so overall you have ##\sqrt{p^0/(\Lambda p)^0}##.

Is your actual problem maybe deriving (5.1.13) from the unnumbered ones immediately prior to it (which include your extra factor)?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PRB147 and malawi_glenn
Dr.AbeNikIanEdL said:
As far as I can tell this extra factor is correct and included in Weinberg‘s derivation (in my edition it is mentioned at the top of p. 194, and is then included in the unnumbered equations before (5.1.13)). Do you agree with those? You have an extra

##\sqrt{(\Lambda p)^0/p^0}##

from (5.1.11), so overall you have ##\sqrt{p^0/(\Lambda p)^0}##.

Is your actual problem maybe deriving (5.1.13) from the unnumbered ones immediately prior to it (which include your extra factor)?
Thank you very much for your quick reply, as you know the unnumbered equation in page 194 closely below the sentence "it is necessary and sufficient that" is obtained from 5.1.6 and 5.1.11. the left hand side of this unnumbered equation can be derived from 5.1.6 and above here, while the right hand side from 5.1.11. However, in both sides, there exists the same integral ##\int d^3\bf{p}##, so, both sides need to change to ##\int d^3(\Lambda {\bf p})##.
So, both sides produce an extra factor ##p^0/(\Lambda p)^0##, leading to an inconsistency withthe book. Alternatively speaking, the factor on the right side should be ##\sqrt{(\Lambda p)^0/p_0}##, which is the inverse of the factor in 5.1.13.
 
Last edited:
Ah, no for the left hand side there is not change of variables, just a renaming. You can write equation (5.1.4) as

## \Psi^+_l(x) = \sum_{\sigma,n} \int d^3(\Lambda p) u_l(x;\mathbb{p}_\Lambda,\sigma,n)a(\mathbb{p}_\Lambda,\sigma,n) ##

by just renaming the integration variable. Note also the arguments of ##u_l## and ##a## changed to ##\mathbb{p}_\Lambda##, and indeed that is also the argument of ##u## on the left hand side in the unnumbered equation. If you do the transformation, the arguments would not change and nothing like (5.1.13) would follow since the argument of ##a## for example would also not match.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PRB147, vanhees71 and malawi_glenn
Thank you! Yes, you are right.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K