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

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,862 answers , 20,637 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
502 active unimported users
More ...

Normalization of the real Klein Gordon Field in Peskin and Schroeder chapter 2

+ 2 like - 0 dislike
1346 views

In Peskin & Schroeder's QFT, how do you get from equation 2.35 to 2.37? (In particular, how does the invariant normalization of the Klein-Gordon real field imply that $U(\Lambda)|p> = |\Lambda p>$ ?)

Also, on a more general note, could some explain why for the real Klein-Gordon field we need to make the effort to define invariant normalization? In particular, why do we care if the expression $<q|p>$ is invariant if it is $|<q|p>|^2$ which bears physical meaning?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-13 04:43 (UCT), posted by SE-user PPR
asked Oct 27, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by PPR (130 points) [ no revision ]

1 Answer

+ 0 like - 0 dislike

In answer to the first part of your question, let's work backward. We write \begin{align} U(\Lambda)|\mathbf{p}\rangle &= \sqrt{2E_{\mathbf{p}}}U(\Lambda)a^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}}U^\dagger(\Lambda)U(\Lambda)|0\rangle \\ &= \sqrt{2E_{\mathbf{p}}}[U(\Lambda)a^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}}U^\dagger(\Lambda)]|0\rangle, \end{align} where we used $U(\Lambda)|0\rangle$ and we have \begin{align} a^\dagger_{\Lambda\mathbf{p}}&=\sqrt{\frac{E_{\mathbf{p}}}{E_{\Lambda\mathbf{p}}}} U(\Lambda)a^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}}U^\dagger(\Lambda), \end{align} which must holds since \begin{align} U(\Lambda) a^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}} \sqrt{E_{\mathbf{p}}}&= a^\dagger_{\Lambda\mathbf{p}}U(\Lambda) \sqrt{E_{\Lambda\mathbf{p}}}. \end{align} Applying this to the vacuum state demonstrates the equation you're asking about. (Note that we've neglected spin throughout.)

Your second question needs to be clarified. You seem to be conflating Lorentz covariance with the issue of Lorentz invariance. The amplitudes are not invariant. They are covariant.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-13 04:43 (UCT), posted by SE-user MarkWayne
answered Oct 27, 2013 by MarkWayne (270 points) [ no revision ]
Thanks very much. I have two questions, first, how should I convince myself that $U(\Lambda)A_p^{\dagger} = A_{\Lambda p}^{\dagger} U(\Lambda)$? The only thing I could think of is that "creating a particle with momentum $p$ and then making the transformation $\Lambda$ is like first making the transformation $\Lambda$ and then creating a particle with momentum $\Lambda p$." The second question is, this equation doesn't seem to be compatible with equation 2.38, which involves the energies too. How do you settle that? Finally, about the motivation for normalization, could you elaborate more?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-13 04:43 (UCT), posted by SE-user PPR
You're right about Eq.(2.38). I made a mistake -- it should have been $a^\dagger_{\Lambda\mathbf{p}} = \sqrt{ \frac{E_{\mathbf{p}}}{E_{\Lambda\mathbf{p}}} } U(\Lambda)a^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}}U^\dagger(\Lambda)$. And the way you've convinced yourself is essentially the proof.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-13 04:43 (UCT), posted by SE-user MarkWayne

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$\hbar$ysicsOver$\varnothing$low
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
...