A Some fun (yet nice) questions on QFT

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter ChrisVer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fun Qft
ChrisVer
Science Advisor
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
465
I was looking through some problems on QFT, and I found these exercises:
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft/oh4.pdf
I was wondering about questions 9 and 10...
Q9 : speaking I guess aftermatch ,why was there a factor of 2 wrong in the published result? To be honest I don't quiet understand the question posed by Pauli, was he asking for something like: \gamma \rightarrow \phi \phi or \gamma \gamma \rightarrow \phi \phi or even \phi \phi ( \rightarrow \gamma \rightarrow ) \phi \phi?
Q10: any hint for why classical physicists hadn't introduced fields for the particles like electrons? was that because QM and wavefunctions were not existent at that time?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,

Q9: I think he meant ##\gamma \rightarrow \phi \phi##. The factor 2 might be due to a symmetry factor that has to be taken into account when outgoing particles are identical (a consequence of Pauli's own principle).

Q10: I would say that indeed fields have their interest when particles cannot be described in terms on trajectories only (i.e. when we go quantum mechanical) and/or when we need to describe the different possibilities for representing the Lorentz group.
 
ChrisVer said:
I was looking through some problems on QFT, and I found these exercises:
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft/oh4.pdf
I was wondering about questions 9 and 10...
Q9 : speaking I guess aftermatch ,why was there a factor of 2 wrong in the published result? To be honest I don't quiet understand the question posed by Pauli, was he asking for something like: \gamma \rightarrow \phi \phi or \gamma \gamma \rightarrow \phi \phi or even \phi \phi ( \rightarrow \gamma \rightarrow ) \phi \phi?
Q10: any hint for why classical physicists hadn't introduced fields for the particles like electrons? was that because QM and wavefunctions were not existent at that time?
I agree with QB for Q9, it must be \gamma \rightarrow \phi \phi (well, this is not possible for an on-shell photon so it must be off-shell) and the factor of two is almost certainly the symmetry factor due to the indistinguishability of the two final particles. As for Q10, the key point is that there can be no coherent states for fermions. The E and B fields we observed in experiments are coherent states of the photon fields and there is no such state for fermions fields.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...

Similar threads

Replies
28
Views
8K
Replies
85
Views
20K
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
25
Views
8K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top