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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of equation (5.1.13) from Weinberg's Quantum Field Theory book, specifically addressing the presence of an extra factor in the transformation of integrals involving momentum variables. Participants explore the implications of changing variables in integrals and the resulting factors that arise in the context of Lorentz transformations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion regarding an extra factor $$\left(\frac{p_0}{(\Lambda p)^0}\right)$$ that appears during the derivation, which leads to a discrepancy with the expected result in (5.1.13).
  • Another participant asserts that this extra factor is indeed correct and is included in Weinberg's derivation, referencing its mention in their edition of the book.
  • There is a suggestion that the actual problem may lie in deriving (5.1.13) from the unnumbered equations preceding it, which include the extra factor.
  • A participant clarifies that the left-hand side of the unnumbered equation does not involve a change of variables but rather a renaming of the integration variable, which affects the arguments of the functions involved.
  • Another participant acknowledges the correctness of the previous point regarding the renaming of variables and the implications for the derivation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement regarding the treatment of the extra factor in the derivation. Some believe it is necessary and correctly included, while others question its role and the consistency of the derivation with the book's equations. The discussion remains unresolved as participants explore different interpretations of the mathematical steps involved.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations related to the assumptions made during variable changes in integrals, as well as the dependence on specific definitions and the context of the equations referenced. The discussion highlights unresolved mathematical steps that contribute to the differing views on the derivation process.

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