• 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.


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

191 submissions , 151 unreviewed
4,796 questions , 1,987 unanswered
5,288 answers , 22,472 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
773 active unimported users
More ...

  Problem with understanding the second proof of Goldstone theorem in Weinberg's book

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

I have a few issues in understanding Weinberg's proof of the Goldstone boson theorem (page 170, vol II):

Equation 19.2.18: why is the $(2\pi)^{-3}$ instead of $(2\pi)^{-4}$, isn't this a term originating from the Fourier transform?

Equation 19.2.19 and 19.2.20 where is the $\delta^4(p-p_N)$ coming from, isn't he only introducing an identity term by summing over all the states?

Equation 19.2.22: why is $\theta(p^0)$ necessary for the states to be physical? Is it to have them be in the future instead of the past?

In the equation between 19.2.31 and 19.2.32: I don't understand where has the $\theta(p_0)$ gone, and why has appeared the term $\sqrt{p^2+\mu^2}$.  My guess for the square root is to come from the 0 component of the derivative but then I don't understand why is it $\sqrt{p^2+\mu^2}$ instead of  $\sqrt{p^2}$, I thought that the  $\mu$ was just a change of variable for $p$ but this doesn't seem to be the case.

Any help is deeply appreciated

asked Mar 6 in Theoretical Physics by HelpIsNeeded [ 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:
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