Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

146 submissions , 123 unreviewed
3,961 questions , 1,408 unanswered
4,890 answers , 20,766 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
506 active unimported users
More ...

C, T, P transformation mistakes in ``Peskin&Schroeder's QFT''?

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
56 views

I suppose the right way to do C (charge), T (time reversal), P(parity) transformation on the state $\hat{O}| v \rangle$ with operators $\hat{O}$ is that:

$$ C(\hat{O}| v \rangle)=(C\hat{O}C^{-1})(C| v \rangle)\\ P(\hat{O}| v \rangle)=(P\hat{O}P^{-1})(P| v \rangle)\\ T(\hat{O}| v \rangle)=(T\hat{O}T^{-1})(T| v \rangle) $$

Thus to understand how an operator $\hat{O}$ transforms under C,P,T, we care about the following form $$ \hat{O} \to (C\hat{O}C^{-1})\\ \hat{O} \to (P\hat{O}P^{-1})\\ \hat{O} \to (T\hat{O}T^{-1}) $$

Here $\hat{O}=\hat{O}(\hat{\Phi},\hat{\Psi},a,a^\dagger)$ contains possible field operators ($\hat{\Phi},\hat{\Psi}$), or $a,a^\dagger$ etc.

To understand how a state $|v \rangle$ transforms, we care about $$ | v \rangle\to C| v \rangle\\ | v \rangle \to P| v \rangle\\ | v \rangle\to T| v \rangle $$

However, in Peskin and Schroeder QFT book, throughout Chap 3, the transformation is done on the fermion field $\hat{\Psi}$(operator in the QFT) : $$ \hat{\Psi} \to (C\hat{\Psi}C)? (Eq.3.145)\\ \hat{\Psi} \to (P\hat{\Psi}P)? (Eq.3.128)\\ \hat{\Psi} \to (T\hat{\Psi}T)? (Eq.3.139) $$

I suppose one should take one side as inverse operator ($(C\hat{\Psi}C^{-1}),(P\hat{\Psi}P^{-1}),(T\hat{\Psi}T^{-1})$). What have been written there in Peskin and Schroeder QFT Chap 3 is incorrect, especailly because $T \neq T^{-1}$, and $T^2 \neq 1$ in general. ($T^2=-1$ for spin-1/2 fermion)

Am I right?(P&S incorrect here) Or am I wrong on this point? (Why is that correct? I suppose S. Weinberg and M. Srednicki and A Zee use the way I described.)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-04 11:39 (UCT), posted by SE-user Idear
asked Nov 24, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by wonderich (1,420 points) [ no revision ]
"I suppose S. Weinberg and M. Srednicki and A Zee use the way I described." Did you check that?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-04 11:39 (UCT), posted by SE-user Prahar
yes, they use the one I believe to be right. I am sure.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-04 11:39 (UCT), posted by SE-user Idear
I guess the reason that both the ways of transformation are valid is the following. $C,P,T$ are discrete operators. Moreover $C^2$~$I$,$P^2$~$I$,$T^2$~$I$. So even if (e.g.) you use $C^{-1}$ instead of $C$ to transform a state (and hence $COC$ to transform an operator) the result would differ only by a phase and hence physically be the same.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-04 11:39 (UCT), posted by SE-user user10001
To user10001: Thanks. But I could not see why $T^2=I$ in general. Does $T^2=1$ or $T^2=-1$ does not matter at all?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-04 11:39 (UCT), posted by SE-user Idear

2 Answers

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

generally under symmetry transformation $S$, $$ O \to S O S^{-1} $$ if $S O S^{-1}=O$ then $O$ is invariant under the symmetry transformation $S$, so $S$ commutes with $O$: $$ [S,O]=0 $$

This is correct as you said. $$ C(\hat{O}| v \rangle)=(C\hat{O}C^{-1})(C| v \rangle)\\ P(\hat{O}| v \rangle)=(P\hat{O}P^{-1})(P| v \rangle)\\ T(\hat{O}| v \rangle)=(T\hat{O}T^{-1})(T| v \rangle) $$

P&S is wrong there (replacing one side by the inverse operator). But the result of transformation should be correct still.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-04 11:39 (UCT), posted by SE-user mysteriousness
answered Nov 24, 2013 by mysteriousness (145 points) [ no revision ]
+ 2 like - 0 dislike

I think it's a matter of choice. If you look through several books you'll see all the possible combination $C\Psi(x)C$, $C\Psi(x)C^{-1}$, $C\Psi(x)C^{\dagger}$ (and the same for $P$ and $T$). I think it all comes down to the representation you are using. Like it is said in the book of Sterman (page 524) :"The precise nature of $T$ depends on the representation, but in the Dirac, Weyl or any other representation where only $\gamma_2$ is imaginary, the choice $T=T^{-1}=i\gamma^{1}\gamma^{3}=T^{\dagger}$ servers our purpose". With the parity and charge conjugation it's the same, being unitary operators. Whatever the representation you use, the end result should be the same. So neither you or P&S are wrong.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-04 11:39 (UCT), posted by SE-user Leonida
answered Nov 24, 2013 by Leonida (130 points) [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysic$\varnothing$Overflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...