Thursday, December 31, 2015

quantum field theory - Why can a Lorentz transformation not take Deltaxmu to Deltaxmu when Deltax is time-like?



In Peskin and Schroder's Quantum field theory text (page 28, the passage below Eq. 2.53), it asserts that for a spacelike interval (xy)2<0, one can perform a Lorentz transformation taking (xy)(xy). This is argued by noting that both the points (xy) and (xy) lies on the spacelike hyperboloid.


The specific Lorentz transformation matrix Λμν that acting on (xy)μΔxμ takes it to Δxμ is given by Λ=diag(1,1,1,1). Is that correct?


For (Δx)2ΔxμΔxμ>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=2s0s1s20s21 is given by (1+v2vv1+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)]=(eip(xy)ei(yx))d3p(2π)312Ep=(eip(xy)eip(yx))d3p(2π)312Ep and the simple integral substitution pp 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

classical mechanics - Moment of a force about a given axis (Torque) - Scalar or vectorial?

I am studying Statics and saw that: The moment of a force about a given axis (or Torque) is defined by the equation: $M_X = (\vec r \times \...