# Transformation of the scalar field under Lorentz Boost [closed]

Assume a Lorentz transformation $\Lambda$ is to be implemented as the unitary operator $U(\Lambda)$ in the Hilbert space of quantum states of the Fock representation upon which the scalar Klein-Gordon field acts: $$\varphi(x)=\int\frac{d^3k}{\sqrt{2}k_0}\left(a(\mathbf{k})e^{-ik\cdot x}+a^\dagger(\mathbf{k})e^{+ik\cdot x}\right)\equiv \int d\Omega_m\left(a(\mathbf{k})e^{-ik\cdot x}+a^\dagger(\mathbf{k})e^{+ik\cdot x}\right)$$ where $d\Omega_m$ is the Lorentz-invariant measure element. How do the annihilation and creation operator transform? How can I prove that $$U(\Lambda)\varphi(x)U^\dagger(\Lambda) = \varphi(\Lambda x)?$$

## closed as off-topic by ACuriousMind♦, Brandon Enright, Kyle Kanos, Martin, JamalSJan 28 '15 at 6:58

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

• "Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better" – ACuriousMind, Brandon Enright, Kyle Kanos, Martin, JamalS
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• A downvote seems harsh. I'm not sure why the question was posted in an "answer your own question" form, but a lot of effort has gone into it. Will downvoting and/or closing it really make the world a better place? – John Rennie Jan 27 '15 at 20:43
• Given that this is a homework question and we have time & again said that homework-like questions & check my-work questions are off-topic, I see no reason why this should receive a special pass just because the OP answered it. – Kyle Kanos Jan 27 '15 at 21:04
• @Kyle Kanos I was indeed in doubt whether to post it or not: I realized the mistake I was making while writing it down. So I checked the "Question and Answer style" linke below and I found "To be crystal clear, it is not merely OK to ask and answer your own question, it is explicitly encouraged"... – Brightsun Jan 27 '15 at 21:26
• Yes, Asking & Answering is acceptable (I've done it myself). However, your question falls afoul of the "Do this calculation for me" type questions that we regard as off-topic. – Kyle Kanos Jan 27 '15 at 21:33
• – glS Jan 27 '15 at 21:40

Physically the creation of a particle with momentum $\mathbf{p}$ will be affected by the Lorentz group in the following manner: since $$U(\Lambda)|\mathbf{p}\rangle = |\Lambda\mathbf{p}\rangle$$ $$|\mathbf{p}\rangle=a^\dagger(\mathbf{p})|0\rangle$$ we get $$U(\Lambda)a^\dagger(\mathbf{k})U^\dagger(\Lambda)=a^{\dagger}(\Lambda\mathbf{k}).$$ Indeed any transition amplitude gives: $$\langle \Lambda\mathbf{p}| \Lambda \mathbf{q}\rangle=\langle0|a(\Lambda\mathbf{p})a^\dagger(\Lambda\mathbf{q})|0\rangle\\ \langle \Lambda\mathbf{p}| \Lambda \mathbf{q}\rangle= \langle \mathbf{p}|U^\dagger(\Lambda)U(\Lambda)|\mathbf{q}\rangle= \langle0|a(\mathbf{p})U^\dagger(\Lambda)U(\Lambda)a^\dagger(\mathbf{q})|0\rangle=\\ \langle0|U^\dagger(\Lambda) U(\Lambda) a(\mathbf{p})U^\dagger(\Lambda)U(\Lambda)a^\dagger(\mathbf{q})U^\dagger(\Lambda) U(\Lambda)|0\rangle=\langle0|U(\Lambda)a(\mathbf{p})U^\dagger(\Lambda)U(\Lambda)a^\dagger(\mathbf{q})U^\dagger(\Lambda)|0\rangle;$$ comparison yields the transformation formula for $a,a^\dagger$. Then by taking the adjoint of the above:$$U(\Lambda)a(\mathbf{k})U^\dagger(\Lambda)=a(\Lambda\mathbf{k}).$$ Now $$U(\Lambda)\varphi(x)U^\dagger(\Lambda)= U(\Lambda)\int d\Omega_m\left(a(\mathbf{k})e^{-ik\cdot x}+a^\dagger(\mathbf{k})e^{+ik\cdot x}\right) U^\dagger(\Lambda)=\\ \int d\Omega_m\left(U(\Lambda)a(\mathbf{k})U^\dagger(\Lambda)e^{-ik\cdot x}+U(\Lambda)a^\dagger(\mathbf{k})U^\dagger(\Lambda)e^{+ik\cdot x}\right)=\\ \int d\Omega_m\left(a(\Lambda\mathbf{k})e^{-ik\cdot x}+a^\dagger(\Lambda\mathbf{k})e^{+ik\cdot x}\right)$$ changing variable and recalling $d\Omega_m$ is invariant under such change, which is in fact a boost, $\mathbf{k}=\Lambda^{-1}\mathbf{k}'$: $$\int d\Omega'_m\left(a(\mathbf{k}')e^{-i(\Lambda^{-1}k')\cdot x}+a^\dagger(\mathbf{k}')e^{+i(\Lambda^{-1}k')\cdot x}\right)=\\ \int d\Omega'_m\left(a(\mathbf{k}')e^{-i(\Lambda^{-1}k')\cdot (\Lambda^{-1}x')}+a^\dagger(\mathbf{k}')e^{+i(\Lambda^{-1}k')\cdot (\Lambda^{-1}x')}\right)$$ where $x'=\Lambda x$. But the $\cdot$ product is invariant under $\Lambda$ so: $$U(\Lambda)\varphi(x)U^\dagger(\Lambda) = \int d\Omega'_m\left(a(\mathbf{k}')e^{-ik\cdot x'}+a^\dagger(\mathbf{k}')e^{+ik'\cdot x'}\right)=\varphi(x'=\Lambda x).$$
• how are you obtaining your third equation? From the first two: $$U(\Lambda) a^\dagger(p) |0\rangle = U(\Lambda) | p \rangle = | \Lambda p \rangle = a^\dagger(\Lambda p)|0\rangle,$$ from which one would conclude that $$U(\Lambda)a^\dagger(p) = a^\dagger(\Lambda p).$$ – glS Jan 27 '15 at 21:46
• added further explanation for $U(\Lambda)a^\dagger(p)U^\dagger(\Lambda)=a^\dagger(\Lambda p)$ – Brightsun Jan 27 '15 at 22:05
• thanks. So you are saying my reasoning is wrong because $U(\Lambda)| 0 \rangle = | 0 \rangle$, right? Also, you could maybe specify that your $\textbf p$ are 4-momenta... the bold notation makes one think at 3-vectors – glS Jan 27 '15 at 22:11
• Yes, I don't think there is a contradiction between my formula and yours, I just like mine better because usually operators transform by conjugacy... And yes, my $\mathbf{p}$ are 3-momenta since the physical state can be labeled by the three components of spacial momentum, and add $p_0$ by mass-shell when needed. – Brightsun Jan 27 '15 at 22:28
• ok, but then how do you interpret $\Lambda \textbf p$ if $\textbf p$ is a 3-vector and $\Lambda$ could be (e.g.) a boost? – glS Jan 27 '15 at 22:56