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

Questions about Peskin QFT

  1. Jul 10, 2008 #1
    Dear all,

    While I was reading chap2 of Peskin, I got some questions.
    (1) The vanishment of the commutator of fields [tex][\phi(x),\phi(y)]=0[/tex] means that the measurements at [tex]x[/tex] and [tex]y[/tex] do not interfere at all. Is this a postulate? Is this the so-called micro-causality?

    (2) How Peskin deform the contour of fig.2.3 ? Why the two contour integrals are the same?

    (3) How to prove if [tex]x,y[/tex] are space-like separated, there is a continuous Lorentz transformation take [tex]x-y[/tex] to [tex]-(x-y)[/tex]? i.e. I don't understand fig.2.4.

    Thanks for anyone.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 12, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Yes, this is the microcausality condition.

    If they are spacelike separated you can define a spacelike vector V that connects them. Then, you can easily show that there exists a Lorentz transformation that transforms V into -V. This will be a rotation of 180 degrees. If you try the same procedure for two points within the light-cone, connected by a timelike vector, you will see that the transformation is not possible.
  4. Jul 12, 2008 #3
    Thanks. I guessed this is a "postulate", however, the book didn't give a clear assertion that this is a postulate. So I doubt that this can be derived. Now I think it is a postulate of QFT.
    Thanks, I got it. But it seems that the argument have to be slightly modified. If V is a spacelike vector, we need not only the rotation to transform V into -V. Because the temporal coordinate is flipped too, so I guess we need a boost also.

    Thanks for the discussion!
  5. Jul 13, 2008 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I started a thread a time ago with a similar question. You may want to use the search function to find it. It seems it is actually a postulate: it can be derived for specific representations such as the Fock representation that, however, restricts itself to positive mass solutions. There is no general way to derive it.

    Yes, but I think that a boost will not do the work to completely transform V into -V if it is timelike.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook