Understanding Peskin's Argument for Equation 6.46

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kof9595995
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Peskin
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on Peskin's argument for deriving Equation 6.46 from his textbook, specifically regarding the integral's behavior under Lorentz invariance. The integral, expressed as \(\int{\frac{d^{4}l}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{l^{\mu}l^{\nu}}{D^3}}\), vanishes by symmetry unless \(\mu=\nu\). Peskin concludes that Lorentz invariance necessitates the result to be proportional to the metric tensor \(g^{\mu\nu}\), as the integral must represent a tensor. This conclusion is reached by recognizing that the only scalar invariant under Lorentz transformations can be expressed in terms of the metric tensor.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lorentz invariance in physics
  • Familiarity with tensor calculus
  • Knowledge of integral calculus in four dimensions
  • Basic concepts of quantum field theory as presented in Peskin's textbook
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Lorentz invariance in quantum field theory
  • Review tensor calculus, focusing on the metric tensor and its applications
  • Examine examples of integrals in four-dimensional spacetime
  • Explore the derivation of other equations in Peskin's textbook for further context
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in theoretical physics, particularly those studying quantum field theory and the mathematical foundations of Lorentz invariance.

kof9595995
Messages
676
Reaction score
2
I don't quite get the argument peskin used to obtain equation(6.46), page 191:
[tex]\int{\frac{d^{4}l}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{l^{\mu}l^{\nu}}{D^3}}=\int{\frac{d^{4}l}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{\frac{1}{4}g^{\mu\nu}l^2}{D^3}}[/tex]
He said"The integral vanishes by symmetry unless [itex]\mu=\nu[/itex]. Lorentz invariance therefore requires that we get something proportional to [itex]g^{\mu\nu}[/itex]...".
I don't understand the "Lorentz invariance therefore..." part. How can one deduce from Lorentz invariance that LHS is an invariant tensor?
I can convince myself the result by arguing spherical symmetry of the integrand, but I just want to understand Peskin's reasoning.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks in advance.A:Peskin is using the fact that the integral must be Lorentz invariant, which means that it is a tensor. The only way for a scalar to be a tensor is if it is proportional to the metric tensor. This means that the integral must be proportional to $g^{\mu\nu}$, and the proportionality constant is determined by plugging in $\mu=\nu$ into the integral.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K