Uncertainties in Srednicki's Book

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter JILIN
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around uncertainties and interpretations of concepts presented in chapters 5 and 9 of Srednicki's book, particularly focusing on the Lorentz invariance of certain quantities, the behavior of parameters in equations, and the implications of interacting versus free fields.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the assertion that the quantity $$ is Lorentz-invariant, with one participant emphasizing its importance and suggesting that without Lorentz invariance, it could take on forms dependent on $p^\mu$.
  • There is a clarification regarding the parameters $m$ and $g$ in equations (5.26) and (5.27), with some participants agreeing that they are indeed different.
  • Participants discuss the assumption of $Z_g = 1 + O(g^2)$ in relation to the earlier statement about $Z_i$, with one participant expressing uncertainty about the justification for this assumption.
  • One participant suggests that the Lorentz invariance can be shown by considering the behavior of fields at $t = \pm \infty$, where they become free fields, thus implying that $$ must also be Lorentz-invariant.
  • Another participant notes that Srednicki assumes certain normalization conditions for a coherent theory, which they argue do not need to be proven.
  • There is a discussion about the applicability of free-field calculations to interacting theories, with some participants asserting that the transformations remain consistent across both types of theories.
  • One participant raises a point about the Higgs field in the context of self-interacting theories, mentioning the necessity of normalization conditions that cannot be derived.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the importance and implications of Lorentz invariance, the behavior of parameters in equations, and the relationship between free and interacting fields. No consensus is reached on these points, indicating ongoing debate and uncertainty.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of applying results from free-field theories to interacting fields and the assumptions made regarding normalization conditions, which remain unresolved.

JILIN
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
I have questions about chapters 5 & 9 in Srednicki's book.

1.
Below eq. (5.18), he says "$<p|\phi (0)|0>$ is a Lorentz-invariant number.", but I do not know why.

2.
Below eq. (5.26), he says "After shifting and rescailing (and renaming some parameters)".
Are $m$ and $g$ in eq. (5.26) different from ones in eq. (5.27)?

3.
Below eq. (9.9), he says "as we will see, "$Y=O(g)$ and $Z_i =1+O(g^2)$", which means these g-dependence is just the expectation at this stage.
In eq. (9.18), however, he used $Z_g =1+O(g^2)$ without showing this $Z_g$-behavior.
Is my understanding incorrect?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1. This is not really important. It's a number. Don't worry about whether it's Lorentz invariant or not.

2. Yes.

3. He's still assuming it. He shows it in a later chapter.
 
Thank you very much!
I understand 2 & 3, but sorry I do not fully understand 1.

I think that the Lorentz-invariance of &lt;p|\phi (0)|0&gt; is important.
&lt;p|\phi (0)|0&gt; should be just some number that is independent of p^\mu, and it is the Lorentz-invariance that makes &lt;p|\phi (0)|0&gt; be, i.e., the Lorentz-invariance imposes the condition that &lt;p|\phi (0)|0&gt; is a function of p^2=-m^2 (number).
In other words, when we do not consider the Lorentz-invariance, is there no possibility that &lt;p|\phi (0)|0&gt;=p_x, for example?
 
Look at eq 3.14 and let x=0, you get \phi (0) replace it in &lt;p|\phi (0)|0&gt; by the integral
put <p| and |0> in the integral. Look at p 26: f(k) is chosen so that the result is lorentz invariant.
 
Last edited:
Thank you, naima.

For "free" field, you are right.
But now in chap. 9 we consider "interacting" field, and ##\phi (0)## is interacting one.
Thus, I do not think we can use eqs. in chap. 3 to prove ##<p| \phi (0) |0>## is Lorentz-invariant.

How about following one?
For ##t=\pm \infty##, ##\phi (x)## becomes free field.
Then, ##<p| \phi (x) |0>## is Lorentz-invariant as you explained.
Therefore, the r.h.s ##e^{-ipx}<p| \phi (0) |0>## is Lorentz-invariant, too.
Since ##e^{-ipx}## is of course Lorentz-invariant, we conclude that ##<p| \phi (0) |0>## also is.
 
Sredinski writes that he assumes this normalization condition (to have a coherent theory). This has not to be proven.
 
The Lorentz transformations of the fields and the one-particle states are the same in the free and interacting theories, so the free-field calculation applies.
 
Thank you, naima & Avodyne.
I understand.
 
JILIN said:
For ##t=\pm \infty##, ##\phi (x)## becomes free field.
Take the Higgs in the ## \phi^4 ## theory. he is never free. he is always self interacting to keep its mass.
When Srednicki studies this family of self interacting theories he says that he has to admit four normalization conditions. they cannot be derived.
 
  • #10
Thank you for your instructive comment!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K