- #1
flix
- 13
- 0
[SOLVED] Quantum Field Theory: Field Operators and Lorentz invariance
Hi there,
I am currently working my way through a book an QFT (Aitchison/Hey) and am a bit stuck on an important step in the derivation of the Feynman Propagator. My problem is obviously that I am not a hard core expert of relativitiy :)
Actually, I have TWO questions on the same matter.
The central quantity is the Feynman Propagator
[tex] <0|T([\hat{\phi}(x_1) \hat{\phi}(x_2)|0> [/tex]
where the [tex] \hat{\phi} [/tex] are scalar field operators and T is the time-ordering operator and the x are 4-vectors.
The point of interest is now this quantity's Lorentz Invariance.
The book says: "If the two points [tex]x_1[/tex] and [tex]x_2[/tex] are separated by a time-like interval ([tex] (x_1 - x_2)^2 > 0)[/tex] then the time ordering is Lorentz invariant; this is because no proper (doesn't change the sense of time) Lorentz transformation can alter the time-ordering of time-like separated events."
It goes on:
"The fact that time-ordering is invariant for time-like separated events is what guarantees that we cannot influence our past, only our future "
First question: The first (italic) part sounds suspiciously self-evident, but how can that be quickly shown mathematically? And for the second part: I would say: the fact that it is Lorentz invariant means that one can not think of a coordinate frame where the events change their order of time. Is that right?
Now the book goes on and treats the case of space-like ([tex] (x_1 - x_2)^2 < 0)[/tex] separated events. The book says it can be shown that it can be shown that the two field operators always commute in this case. I tried to show that following a hint:
Commutator of 2 scalar Field Operators of the same kind:
[tex] D(x_1, x_2) = [\hat{\phi}(x_1, t_1), \hat{\phi}(x_2, t_2)] [/tex]
.. with 3-vectors and time component treated seperatly.
I could show that this can be written as
[tex] D(x_1, x_2) = \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3 2E} [ e^{-ik\cdot(x_1-x_2)} - e^{ik\cdot(x_1-x_2)}][/tex]
... with x and k being again 4-vectors.
The right side is obviously Lorentz invariant. The book now hints that this fact is enough to show that in this case [tex] D(x_1, x_2)[/tex] actually always vanishes.
Second question: How is Lorentz invariance enough to show that?
Hi there,
I am currently working my way through a book an QFT (Aitchison/Hey) and am a bit stuck on an important step in the derivation of the Feynman Propagator. My problem is obviously that I am not a hard core expert of relativitiy :)
Actually, I have TWO questions on the same matter.
The central quantity is the Feynman Propagator
[tex] <0|T([\hat{\phi}(x_1) \hat{\phi}(x_2)|0> [/tex]
where the [tex] \hat{\phi} [/tex] are scalar field operators and T is the time-ordering operator and the x are 4-vectors.
The point of interest is now this quantity's Lorentz Invariance.
The book says: "If the two points [tex]x_1[/tex] and [tex]x_2[/tex] are separated by a time-like interval ([tex] (x_1 - x_2)^2 > 0)[/tex] then the time ordering is Lorentz invariant; this is because no proper (doesn't change the sense of time) Lorentz transformation can alter the time-ordering of time-like separated events."
It goes on:
"The fact that time-ordering is invariant for time-like separated events is what guarantees that we cannot influence our past, only our future "
First question: The first (italic) part sounds suspiciously self-evident, but how can that be quickly shown mathematically? And for the second part: I would say: the fact that it is Lorentz invariant means that one can not think of a coordinate frame where the events change their order of time. Is that right?
Now the book goes on and treats the case of space-like ([tex] (x_1 - x_2)^2 < 0)[/tex] separated events. The book says it can be shown that it can be shown that the two field operators always commute in this case. I tried to show that following a hint:
Commutator of 2 scalar Field Operators of the same kind:
[tex] D(x_1, x_2) = [\hat{\phi}(x_1, t_1), \hat{\phi}(x_2, t_2)] [/tex]
I could show that this can be written as
[tex] D(x_1, x_2) = \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3 2E} [ e^{-ik\cdot(x_1-x_2)} - e^{ik\cdot(x_1-x_2)}][/tex]
The right side is obviously Lorentz invariant. The book now hints that this fact is enough to show that in this case [tex] D(x_1, x_2)[/tex] actually always vanishes.
Second question: How is Lorentz invariance enough to show that?