In Peskin and Schroder's Quantum field theory text (page 28, the passage below Eq. 2.53), it asserts that for a spacelike interval (x−y)2<0, one can perform a Lorentz transformation taking (x−y)→−(x−y). This is argued by noting that both the points (x−y) and −(x−y) lies on the spacelike hyperboloid.
The specific Lorentz transformation matrix Λμν that acting on (x−y)μ≡Δxμ takes it to −Δxμ is given by Λ=diag(−1,−1,−1,−1). Is that correct?
For (Δx)2≡ΔxμΔxμ>0, why the Lorentz transformation Λ=diag(−1,−1,−1,−1) will not take Δxμ to −Δxμ?
Answer
The argument given in Peskin and Schröder is at the very least confusing. The "Lorentz-invariant" measure d3p(2π)312Ep is only invariant under proper orthochronous Lorentz transformations, i.e. those continuously connected to the identity (P&S seem aware of this when they talk about a "continuous Lorentz transformation"). In particular, Ep would flip the sign under your transformation and so you would not get the desired zero for the commutator from that.
What P&S presumably have in mind is this: Take a space-like vector s with components (s0,s1,s2,s3), where we can w.l.o.g. take s2=s3=0, s0,s1 positive and where "space-like" then means s1>s0. The boost with velocity v=2s0s1s20−s21 is given by (√1+v2vv√1+v2) and will send (s0,s1) to (−s0,−s1) if and only if (s0)2−(s1)2<0 (this is a tedious, but straightforward computation). That there is no proper orthochronous transformation doing this for a time-like vector follows directly from e.g. this earlier question of yours.
An easier argument for why [ϕ(x),ϕ(y)] vanishes is as follows:
If x and y are at space-like separation, there is a proper orthochronous Lorentz transformation that sets x0=y0, i.e. makes both events simultaneous. Then, we have that [ϕ(x),ϕ(y)]=∫(e−ip(x−y)−e−i(y−x))d3p(2π)312Ep=∫(e−i→p(→x−→y)−e−i→p(→y−→x))d3p(2π)312Ep and the simple integral substitution →p↦−→p in the second term then yields zero for the commutator. Note that we do not use "Lorentz invariance" for this substituiton, you just observe the transformation flips the integral boundaries ∫∞−∞ to ∫−∞∞ and that d3p also flips its sign so we get no overall sign change.
No comments:
Post a Comment