0
$\begingroup$

I'm currently studying Klein-Gordon fields and I ran onto the concept of the Lorentz invariant integration measure, namely: \begin{equation} \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^32E_k} \end{equation} where $E_k=\sqrt{\boldsymbol{k}^2+m^2}$. I see from Lorentz Invariant Integration Measure that in my integral I should include $\theta(k_0)\delta(k^{\mu}k_{\mu}-m^2)$. I get the reason for the presence of the delta (I want on-shell relativistic particles) but I don't get why I want to select particles with positive energy and neglect the negative solutions.

On my notes, I find that $k_0=\pm E_k$ and "Negative energies can't be neglected. They will eventually be interpreted as antiparticles with positive energy in QFT". So why, integrating, I select only particles with $k_0>0$?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

It is just mathematics, forget about the physics for a moment. What we want to do is to find an integration measure $\mathrm d\mu(\boldsymbol k)$ that is invariant under Lorentz transformations. It should be clear that $$ \mathrm d\mu(\boldsymbol k)=\delta(k^2-m^2)\Theta(k^0) $$ does the trick, irrespective of what the factors represent. You may wonder why we choose this form for $\mathrm d\mu$ instead of some other possibility; the reason is that this measure is rather natural in this context. You can find a possible motivation for $\mathrm d\mu$ in this post of mine.

By using $\Theta(k^0)$ you are not selecting particles. After all, you are solving the Klein-Gordon equation, at which point there are no particles yet. On the other hand, if you are using $\mathrm d\mu(\boldsymbol k)$ to derive a formula for the cross-section, the particles are already there! You cannot change the spectrum of the Hamiltonian by choosing some integration measure or other. The physics of a problem are independent of how you choose to solve the equations. Choosing this specific form for $\mathrm d\mu(\boldsymbol k)$ is convenient. Choosing other forms won't remove, nor add, particles from your system.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ok I get it. I thought there was a specific physical reason and this was the origin of my confusion. Thank you for linking your answer, it's very detailed and it will be useful. So I can as well use $\delta(k^{\mu}k_{\mu}-m^2)$? (as you did in your answer) $\endgroup$ – Luthien Dec 15 '16 at 17:10
  • $\begingroup$ Im glad I could help. What do you mean by "So I can as well use $\delta(k^2-m^2)$?" $\endgroup$ – AccidentalFourierTransform Dec 15 '16 at 17:12
  • $\begingroup$ As a measure. I saw from your answer that you didn't bother to ass the heaviside but, elegantly, you simply integrated over $dk_0$. The Lorentz invariance is preserved but your measure was simply $d^4k\delta(k^2-m^2)$. (I admit I'm very weak with the concept of "measure" so I may say really stupid things) $\endgroup$ – Luthien Dec 15 '16 at 17:17
  • $\begingroup$ in the other post I didnt build the measure on purpose: I showed that the standard choice naturally emerges from the properties of the Fourier Transform. $\endgroup$ – AccidentalFourierTransform Dec 15 '16 at 17:26
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, I get it. Either you proceed via Fourier transform or you "build" your invariant measure. Thanks :) $\endgroup$ – Luthien Dec 15 '16 at 18:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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