Timeline for Why does a Lorentz scalar field transform as $U^{-1}(\Lambda)\phi(x)U(\Lambda) = \phi(\Lambda^{-1}x)$?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 29, 2014 at 18:40 | comment | added | Vladimir Kalitvianski | One can say that in a scalar field there is nothing to transform but the argument. The proof shows that it is transformed as expected, not differently. | |
| Jan 29, 2014 at 18:22 | comment | added | Physics_maths | That's how PS motivates it... but why motivate if it can be derived? Can it be derived? Srednicki doesn't define it, he says we should expect... | |
| Jan 29, 2014 at 18:15 | comment | added | joshphysics | I agree that it is a definition, so why simultaneously claim that it can be proven? It's a well-motivated definition, but motivation and proof are different. | |
| Jan 29, 2014 at 17:50 | history | answered | Vladimir Kalitvianski | CC BY-SA 3.0 |