• 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.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

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


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,064 questions , 2,215 unanswered
5,347 answers , 22,731 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Proof of the spin-statistics theorem using (QFT) S-matrix arguments?

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

In my lecture notes (not available online) it says in a comment that the Spin-Statistics Theorem can for example be (partially) proven by the fact that using commutators for quantising particles of half integer spin destroys the Lorentz invariance of the S-matrix (in the context of QFT).

Does in the same way Lorentz invariance of the S-matrix get destroyed when using anticommutators for quantizing bosons?

As this was just a short remark, I would like to see that proof in more technical detail to better appreciate this line of argument.

asked Apr 16, 2015 in Theoretical Physics by Dilaton (6,240 points) [ no revision ]

1 Answer

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

This is answered in detail in Weinberg's QFT book, vol. I, Chapter 5. 

Briefly, to satisfy Lorentz invariance of the S-matrix, one needs (5.1.3), hence  (by the form of $H$) that the spacelike (anti)commutators of the basic fields vanish. To construct the fields from the physical Poincare irreps, one needs to take appropriate linear combination of the creation and annihilation fields to ensure that the spacelike (anti)commutators vanish (5.1.32), and this is found to require the commutator for integral spin and the anticommutator for half-integral spin (5.7.28).

For full details see the discussion around (5.1.29-33) and (5.7.28-29). 

answered Apr 16, 2015 by Arnold Neumaier (15,787 points) [ revision history ]

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:
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).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

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

Your rights