What Makes Equation 8.9 in Quantum Field Theory So Confusing?

AI Thread Summary
Equation 8.9 in Quantum Field Theory has generated confusion regarding the relationship between four-vectors and mass. The discussion highlights that while the norm of a four-vector equals the mass, the vector itself cannot be equated to the mass, similar to how a vector cannot equal a scalar. Participants clarify that the equation's right-hand side should not be zero, emphasizing the importance of understanding the distinction between four-vectors and their norms. Additionally, references to other texts, such as Guidry's field theory, are made to support the argument. Overall, the confusion stems from a misunderstanding of the mathematical representation of four-vectors in the context of relativistic physics.
shadi_s10
Messages
87
Reaction score
0
Dear all,
I am taking 'field theory' course this semster and I am reading 'quantum field theory' by mandl and shaw.
In chapter 8, equation (8.9) we see:

E_1 E_2 v_rel=〖[(p_1 p_2 )^2-m_1^2 m_2^2]〗^(1/2)

and we know that as p is a four vector:
p=(E,P)=m
so p_1 p_2 = m_1 m_2

!
Isn't it strange?!
I think the right hand side of eq(8.9)should be zero then!

what am I donig wrong?!

:confused:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
shadi_s10 said:
and we know that as p is a four vector:
p=(E,P)=m
That doesn't make any sense. The mass m is a scalar. How can it be equal to p, a four-vector?
 
shadi_s10 said:
Dear all,
I am taking 'field theory' course this semster and I am reading 'quantum field theory' by mandl and shaw.
In chapter 8, equation (8.9) we see:

E_1 E_2 v_rel=〖[(p_1 p_2 )^2-m_1^2 m_2^2]〗^(1/2)

and we know that as p is a four vector:
p=(E,P)=m
so p_1 p_2 = m_1 m_2

!
Isn't it strange?!
I think the right hand side of eq(8.9)should be zero then!

what am I donig wrong?!

:confused:
The norm of the 4-vector is equal to m not the vector itself.
 
But if you take a look at field theory by guidry we have the exact same term!
I mean:
p= (E,P) = m
Because as you know in relativity we have:
E^2+P^2=m^2
and this is the exact result from p= m
!
 
You must be leaving out typographical information because what you are writing simply doesn't make sense. It's akin to saying the vector (2,1,3) is equal to the number 6. It just doesn't work from a mathematical perspective.
 
shadi_s10 said:
But if you take a look at field theory by guidry we have the exact same term!
I mean:
p= (E,P) = m
Because as you know in relativity we have:
E^2+P^2=m^2
and this is the exact result from p= m
!
It is actually E^2-P^2=m^2

\vec{p}=(E,\vec{P})

\vec{p}\cdot\vec{p}=E^2-\vec{P}\cdot\vec{P}=m^2
|p|=m
I do not have your book but I know the notation you are using.It does not bother pointing the difference between the vector and the norm.You should be able to figure out what is he is talking about from the context.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top