Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Here are 2 doubts:

  1. If we change the sign of the mass term in the free massive KG Lagrangian to get:

    $L = \frac{1}{2}\partial^\mu\phi\partial_\mu\phi + \frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2$,

    What would be the $physical$ implications of this change? (aside from on shell condition not being satisfied)?

  2. Let $\phi^{(1)}$ and $\phi^{(2)}$ be 2 real scalar fields with the Lagrangian:

    $L = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i}\partial^\mu\phi^{(i)}\partial_\mu\phi^{(i)} - \frac{1}{2}m^2 \sum_{i,j,k} \phi^{(i)} M_{ij}M_{jk} \phi^{(k)}$ .

    where $M_{11} = \lambda$, $M_{12} = 1$, $M_{21} = 1$, $M_{22} = 0$ AND $\lambda >> 1$.

    What is the mass ratio of the 2 particles in the theory?

    EDIT: As for the 2nd question, I found that $L$ should simplify to $\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i}\partial^\mu\phi^{(i)}\partial_\mu\phi^{(i)} - \frac{1}{2} m^2(\lambda \phi^{(1)} + \phi^{(2)})^2$. I tried continuing from the viewpoint that we can consider the superposition $\phi^{(3)} = \lambda \phi^{(1)} + \phi^{(2)}$ and try to eliminate cross-terms, thereby getting a simple sum of non-interacting Lagrangians, but that didn't work. (Now I'm out of my depths)

Thanks in advance

share|cite|improve this question
Please do not remove the content of your question like that. – dmckee Mar 11 '13 at 19:03
up vote 3 down vote accepted

Here we will only address the first question. A tachyonic negative mass-square term corresponds to a potential term $V$ that is unbounded from below. This drives the value $|\phi| \to \infty$. In other words, a physical instability.

share|cite|improve this answer
If possible could you give a reference which explains how the potential term is unbounded and hence $\phi$ goes to infinity? I have a vague idea that ordinarily particles are small oscillations of the field about the minimum of the potential, but I can't put any of that in rigorous terms. – 1989189198 Mar 10 '13 at 19:52
$V(\phi) =- \frac{1}{2} m^2 \phi^2$ (with $m^2>0$) implies that $V$ as a function of $\phi$ is unbounded from below, no need for anything fancy. – alexarvanitakis Mar 10 '13 at 20:00
Ah sorry! My bad, I'm considering everything too complicated... – 1989189198 Mar 10 '13 at 20:09

For the second part of the question, note that the kinetic term for $N$ scalar fields $\phi_i$ is invariant under and O(N) rotation of the fields $\phi_i \to O^j_i \phi_j$:

$$ (\partial \phi_i) (\partial \phi_i) \to (\partial \phi_j O^j_i) (\partial \phi_k O^k_i) = O^j_i O^k_i (\partial \phi_j)(\partial \phi_k),$$

and using $O^j_i O^k_i = \delta^{jk}$. But the mass term changes:

$$ \phi_i (M^2)_{ij} \phi_j \to \phi_k (O^k_i (M^2)_{ij} O^l_j) \phi_l.$$

Since the mass matrix is symmetric you can choose an $O^k_i$ to diagonalise it:

$$ O^k_i (M^2)_{ij} O^l_j = m_k^2 \delta_{kl}, $$

(no sum on $k$ on the right hand side) and the eigenvalues $m_i^2$ are the physical masses and the eigenvectors are the physical mass eigenstates.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks and apologies for the late acknowledgement! – 1989189198 May 25 '13 at 4:37

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.