ULIAN SCHWINGER
late, University of California at Los Angeles
P E R S E U S BOOKS
Reading, Marsaehusetts
Many of the designations used by manufacturers and sellers to distinguish their prod
ucts are claimed as trademarks. m e r e chose designations appear in. this book and
Perseus Books was aware of a uademark claim, the designations have been printed in
initial capital letters.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10EB0201009998
First printing, September 1998
Editor's Foreword
Perseus Books's Frontiers in Physics series has, since 1961, made it possible for
leading physicists to communicate in coherent fashion their views of recent
developments in the most exciting and active fields of physicswithout having
to devote the time and energy required to prepare a formal review or mono
graph. Indeed, throughout its nearly fortyyear existence, the series has empha
sized informality in both style and content, as well as pedagogical clarity. Over
time, it was expected that these informal accounts would be replaced by more
formal counterpartstextbooks or monographsas the cuttingedge topics
h e y treated gradually became integrated into the body of physics knowledge
and reader interest dwindled. However, this has not proven to be the case for a
nllrnher of the volumes in the series: Many works have remained in print on an
ondemand basis, while others have such intrinsic value that the physics com
munity has urged us to extend their life span.
The Advanced Book Classics series has been designed to meet this demand. It
will keep in print those volumes in Frontiers in Physics or its sister series, Lecture
Notes and Supplements in Physics, that continue to provide a unique account of
a topic of lasting interest. And through a sizable printing, these classics will be
made available at a comparatively modest cost to the reader.
These lecture notes by Julian Schwinger, one of the most distinguished the
ore tical physicists of this century, provide both beginning graduate students and
experienced researchers with an invaluable introduction to the author's per
spective on quantum electrodynamics and highenergy particle physics. Based
on tectures delivered during the period 1966 to 1973, in which Schwinger
developed a point of view (the physical source concept) and a technique that
emphasized the unity of particle physics, electrodynamics, gravitational theory,
and manybody theory, the notes serve as both a textbook on source theory and
an informal historical record of the author's approach to many of the central
problems in physics. I am most pleased that Advanced Book Classics will make
these volumes readily accessible to a new generation of readers.
Bavid Pines
Aspen, Colorado
July 1998
This page intentionally left blank
Vita
$dim Schwinger
UdverSity Professw, University of CafoAa, md Prafessor of Physics at the
U~versityof Califoda, Angeles since 1872, was bosn in Nevv York City m
F e b m q 12, 1918, Profwsor S fxis Ph.D. in physics fm
Cdvmbia U~versityin 1939, He has itlm raived honotq doctorat= irr
from four iastitutions: hrdue U~versity(19611, H m a d U~vergity(19621,
Brmdeis University (19731, and Gustavus Adolphus &Bege (1975). fn addition
to teach8 at the U~versityof Califoda, Profesmr SGhwinger h trruCyht at
hrdue U~vmsity (B41%$31,and at H m m d U~versity (194572). Dr.
Sch~ngerwas a Rmewch Asmiate at the U~versityof C a E f e a , Berkeley,
and a Staff Member of the Mlllsachwetris Institute of Twbolow hdiation
Laboratoq. In, 1965 h o f a s ~ r rwipient ( ~ t f iEchwd
F e p m n m d Sin; Itiro Tomon in Physia for wark in
qumtum d e e t r d p
vii
This page intentionally left blank
Special Pre
Belmonl, Massachusetts
Oetobet 1969
Contents
The concept of the p&icle has undergone drastic changes and generalisations
in the c a m e of $he hisb6cal development that l& to the! atom, to the nu~leus,
sad then 4x1 subnuclear phenomena, This htts aka been a progesrjion from
es~eotialynonrel&ivistic behaGor to an ulkrarelativistic dometin, It is interest
ing b appmciafe how mueh of the kinema.tical particle a t t ~ b u t e is
s implied by
the mumeb stmretuxe!of %herel8btivity goup of krm~fi3rnEfrtio~1~ among equiva
lent coordinate system%, In preparatioxr Ear this dimurnion we fimt review some
propt?r&iesof qusntum nneehanical unitary t r d o
( =( U = ) X =
Then d l numerical and adjoint relations among vectors and operatarn are
umhanged, We rredfy that
( 2 )= a , (2lXIF) = (a'lxlb'). (11.4)
The adjoint relation~hip,
($1 = Id)'
i~
trsn~fomedinto
shows that the Hemitian operator A is mapped into the Hermitian operator a.
1
A eomplete get of states (a'[ f o m s a b a i s or coordinate system ilz the state
space, Any veetor 1 ) is represenled by its components mlative ta this bmis,
(dl ). Amther basis is produeed by a unitary transformation:
1%is produeed in one s$ep by the unitary operator U%&, in vvhich the multi
plication order reflee& the sequenee of tr~nsformations,The appasih sequence
is repremnhd by U1U2, and the two are eomgamd by defining the unitary
aprator that h needed to convert the mead equence into the first,
where
sx = (r/z">[x,
q,
An equivale~tfarm ia
X = ulxu = X  &X.
If we compare alternalive evafuatiaw of
where
are the parameters of another element of &hegroup. For unifary operabm the
existence of the irtvem ancl, of fhe identity is awumd. An i n f i k h i m l $mm
formation of the group with parametrtm &X, i~ comtmeM from
*ere the n finite Hemitim opclrators Qa are cailed the &c3mratomof the &roup.
One is free Lo redefine Cbt: generators by real nowindrtr Einmrr frm&~msbdiom,
with eorrmponding redefinitions of the prametem. On subjmtbg the in
finitttsimid transformation operator U(6X)Lo an mbitrav unitav tradomatioa
of the group, we mu&$obtain another infirzibsinnal frawfarma$iorr. TKi irr
expresged by
( hE
~ ( k )  ' ~ ~ v= ) @.a(&)@&, (11.26)
b
where the numbem uaa(X)sre real, We shall also use a matrix m t a % i oin
~ Ghe
adimensional parameter ~paef3trnd write
and
~(~~)U(XI)GU(X~)'U(~~>'
= U(X~)[G~(X~)IU(A~)"
= @m2)4(X1). (11.32)
Since the unit operator corresponds to the unit matrix, we write
where
Ba = ga
T T*
= ga .
This gives
[G, Gbl = gbG = G4b
and, if the irnsginary elements of the matrix gb are designated ss
The latter are a set of quadratic restrictions that must be obeyed by the numbere
g* the socalled group structure constants:
This cyclic structure also follows immediately from the cyclic form of the
[[Gat @blF Gel + [W&,
Gel, G,] + [[G,, G,],
= 0. (l141)
Gb]
The ~tmctureeomfants speeify the compsition propedies of inhibsimal
par~mekm. Let blXPIXah the parametrsrzl of Ithe infinihsimal fmnsformation
that conoeetrs the two mquences in which Lhe tramformation8 labled by
and b2X, can be applid, Accordjng to the commuhtions relations of tho ~ o u p
gener~tom,they %regiven by
The fact that succeSsive displaeements are insensitive to the order in which. they
are t?;pptiedshould imply the eontmutalivily of p1 and pa, But d l that h requi~ed
of the commu"ttoor is that if generate a unitary transformation without physical
eomequences, Accordingly,
We recognizie the propertim 5f the q,p phase space wsoeirtted with. a single
qurtntum degee of freedom. Translations in this two4imemional @pace are
describd by a threeparabmeter unitary group. This is explicit in the f o m
G X p liq m q lip + &PI. (11.47)
The onr respondence between. the unitary operators U(&) and the finite
matrices %(X), &(h) doe8 nst nece~sarilyincl& the mitary ehsraekr of the
Istfer. [Note that if the %(X) m;:unitary, or real odhagonaf, matrices, we have
%(h) == B(%), md then the Eiernnitian, or ima&ary mtkymnzetnisal r n a t ~ m
g. = ia.] Since the structure of the g matrices csn be altered by changing the
generator basis in the parameter @p, it is useful to have a basisindependent
ith which to judge the pomibi1iC;y of exhibiti I;ian g matfices
%(X)rn%tfiw. If the mt of rr 42 operabrs i~ by tht!linearly
cornbimtiom XG, the g nnatficm ux1,dergo the 8ame liniear %rang
tber with a similafity transfomation p r d u ~ e dby the non
sine;ular m a t k X. Bw&usethe trmt: of nnatdx produels is unchanged by the
Xathr $randomation we somider the real quadratic form
The invariance of the* numbers under unitary transformations on. the operator8
leads again to the form
rf= u ( x ) r ' ~ ( x ) ~ , (1 1.54)
with the implication that the %(h)can be pre~entedas unitary matrices. The
corresponding Hesmitian matrices g,, whi~hare linearly independent if we ex
elude the uninteresting possibility that the group has an Abelian poup as a
factor, arc? an example of a finitedimensiod realization of the G,, m the %(X)
provide a finitedimensional unitary realization of the U(&). Conversely, if the
matrix Tab is not positivedefinite, no s u ~ finite
h unitary [Hermitian] realization
of the U(&)[&)can exist. A finitedimensisnd realization of the group meana
that a finite number of staks can be found which are transformed among
themselves by all, operations of the goup. frz general, the aetioxl of zt unitary
operator on tz s t a b introduces new states, and the repetil;ion. of the operation
continues the prmess of producing additional states, This can terminae with a
finite number of states only if thztf repetition eventually cea~esto provide new
operatom, that ia, if the group paramebr sp~ect;is cio~ed. The distinction be
tween a closed and an open group manifold is most familiar in that between
rotation8 and Lranslaf ions.
XE the matrices g, are Hermitisn, the stmetum constants gabc are anti
symmetrical in a and c, M well as a and b, which implies antisymmetry in ;b
and c. This cornpieh antisymmetry can only be realized with n 2 3, For
n 3, EL, suitable normalization brings the im.a@nav structure constants to the
unique farm
gabe ==z i e ~ b c t (11.55)
where Ecrbe i~ the totally antisymmetrical symbol specified by El23 = 41. The
resulting group comrnufatian relations
[G., Gal =i C
e
e.acCc,
and
6r = 6e + 6w X r + 6vE.
Note that the sign conventions are appropriak to the significance of 60, my, as
the displacement of the origin of the spatial coordinate frame to which a dven
point is referred. If it is the point that is moved by Sr, its new position relative
+
to the fixed reference system is r 6r. m e graup camposition properties of
this 10parameter group are gpecified by compafing the wquence of tramforma
tions
with those in the opposite order. The result of pedoming the .tramformation
sequence 1, 2, l l, 2l, or, equivalently, for infinitesimal transformations,
I', 2l, 1, 2, i s
where
where K, I;, M are constants. The Jaeobi identity, iltpplicsd Co thrm mt8 of
infinitesimd treznsformatians, implies that
where we have adopted the summation convention for repeaM indices; here,
the index m = 1, 2, 3,
The eommuttllor of two generator8 ean be inkvreted, in two dbrnative
wntys, m the effect of an infinitssimal unitav transfomatian upon an operabr:
The eommutaltors involving the anwlar momentum apratior, for emmpIe, can
be w ~ t k nans
.
sUJ= (X/.i)fJ, J * 401 = 6c;~X J,
6,P = fI/z'>[P,3 Gccr] == 6 0 X P, (12.13)
BUN = (I/i)[N, J 6 4  6 0 X N,
which state the rmponse of a vector to infinitesinsaf rofstions, and
&,B= (1/$7[H, 
J 401 = 0, (12. r4)
which charaeterires H as a rotational scalsr. Analogous linear momentum and
translettioa, rmponse equations are
The consequence is
vvhieh gives the decomposition inta energy of motion of the whale rs;vstem and
internal enerw, The latter will generally involw indernd dynamkal variables,
which commute with R and P, combined in sueh a way that Hint is invariant
under the rotation generahd by the inbrrral angular monnenlum S.
An dementary particle is a aystem tk'ifiout inkrnd enere, or a t lea& one
for which inkrnal enerw is effectively ined under the limikd physical eir
cumstances under consid64ration. Let us consider n elementary gafiieles, each
described as above by variables re, p,, Sa and mms m,, a = 1, . . ,n. The.
operators msoeiated with digerat pafiieles commuh, The krretie traxrsforma
tion generators of the whole sysknt are then obtained additively as
and
12 Psnl~les Chap, 1
The oprators for the total sy~teznhave the required propeeiesi. Note that the
inbmal vafiables introduced here are not l i n e d y indqendent :
and
where
In deriving the lmt equation we have omitted such commuta;tors as [(e/e)A, ecp].
This is La be validated, not as a clmsical approximation, but through the
negligibility of the dynamical reaction back an the externat system. We also
note the commutation relation indicated by
Analogous electric dipole moments have never been observed. One value of the
gyromagnetic ratio g has a special property. In a homogeneous magnetie field
the veloeiLy and the spill vectors precess about the field axis. The two p r e ~ w i o n
mtes are equal if g =.I 2. The observed values of g are very sligfitly in excess of
2 for the electron f2(1.001tM)] and Lhe rnuon [2(1.001166)], but differ widely
for other padiele~.
We shall find it interesting to consihr a spidess charged parLic1e that move8
in the magnetic field of a distant stationary magnetic charge. Let the ~oordinate
origin be plseed at the position, of this charge (we now use the letter g to denah
its strength in Gaussian units), so that
But since the Hamiltonian is no more than quadratic in the momenla, sym
metrized multiplication enables one to write
d 1 dH
f (r) = [f (P), H ] = Vf(r)  = v Vj(r),
C~P
and thereby recognize the consewed angular monnenlurn veetor
~=rXmveQL. (l2,52)
C r
One easily verifies that it is the rotation generator. Them is an impadant con
mquenee of that fact.: Consider the coordinate wave funetion repre~entixlgrt
p&rticular sLaLe, (rt[ ), and perform. a coordinak system rotation about the axis
provided by r, An infinitesimal rotation ifs given by
and the known limitation to single or double valuedness for rotation throul,Th 21r
radians implies that eg/e is either an integer or an inkger plus i.
As a discussion of magnetic charge and its implications this is quite in
complete. However, the special opraLor system given in Eqs. (12.471, (12.481,
and (12.52) will soon be encountered again in a very difierrznl physical context.
The new feature associated with. the finiteness of c, the speed af light, is the
abandonment of absolute simultaneity, It is replaced, for infiniksimal trarrs
formations, by
where &c0 is the displacement of the origin for the variable cl. We now designate
the spacetime coordinates collectively by zp = et, r, where z0 = X@ = et
and zk =r= a = r k . The infinitesimal coordinate transformations of the Einstein
ian relralividy g o u p are
where
ady=  &oVIL.
The six independent parameters of this fourdimensional roLation are relakd ta
6w and 6v lay
li~k=
t E ~ ~ ~ h O~ k = w Bv~
~/c. , (13.4)
The composition properties of the 10parameter group are specifid by
and
c ~ =o H +M C ~ .
16 PartZelss Chap, t
we 8hall reco@zle &ho&lythe neeemity far the &M% henera o ~ &b$wmn $he
relativktic and nomlati~&icdomaim (to ug@;the aanventiond l%b& for the
two relati~tie~). As to the compo@i&ioa for tht? wd&r pararnekr 8p, it i8
interesting thaL no vanear s c a k S1121~"=   Q l a l l ~can. km fomad in flre four*
dimensianal MinkowsE spMe hm.the wectom b l ,pep and the '&mm B1s2WP".
ALccordbgly,
4IZXP == Ot (13.9)
and the full, mt of eommut~tomfor the geaemtom is
where
*JP@ ~ L C ~ ~ J . ~
forms the tensor dual to J"" with the aid of the totally antisynmretricaf ternor
srpcified by
e0128 E
M (13.21)
Thk invwrietnm prowrty fsllows from the tr~wlationaIresponse of J,x, aad the
antisymmetry of c'"',
We also n o h that
&W" = 0.
The sealiar
W 2= WPWr 2 0
is invariant under aEE Lorentg tr8nsformations. As indicated, the vecfor W',
being orthogonal to PC,eannot be timelike. The @ommudation,relations among
the components of WIrare
+
is already contained in the relation PO = (p2 M 2 ) l i Z .
Now let an inkrnaf a n w l ~ momentum
r be added:
As such, S m u ~ commuh
t with R and P while itself obying the a n v l a r mo
mentum commutation mles. It r s
i also necessary to supplement P4 irt order to
generab the spin h r m of the commutator
A suitable form is
N =  P'R + a(P")S X P. (13'37)
The ealeulettion of N X , N involves
~P@RX [a(S X P)] i[a(S X P)] X P'R +
a2i(s X P) X (S X P)
+
= ( d a / d P ' ) ~X ( S X P ) 2P0&  a2[pZf5
 P X (S X P)], (13.38)
and the r e q u i d resulL is obtained with
We cone1ude that
a(Po) = (PO + M)',
the alternative choice with ( P o  M)' being singular a t P = 0, P' = M.
The 6nsl form is
J=RXP+S,
N = PZO  PR + + M SXP,
whieh incidentally shows that S' is B Lorenta invariant. It is worth pointing out
the converse, that operators with the slat& properties of R and S can be eon
structed from the Lorentz generaton (zO= 0):
or
w 0 =P+,
(l3,451
W = P@S + M P x ( S X P ) = M S + ~ , + P~ P  S .
The last relation can dso be written as
where
X = P *SIP0
is a Lorents invariant. This quantity is the component of the spin along the
direction of motion, or the helicity of the particle. In view of its invariance, a
phy~icalsylshnn need exhim only an@value of helieify, or, if ~pwemfieeLion
parity has a meaning for the interactions of that system, the pseudoscalar h osn
have two values, fs. The photon, with s = 1, illustrates the latter situation,
white for the neucfinos, with g = 3, X = +s and a refer ta emntiaUy dZ~?ren%
p&&icfes, f f only one helieity vatue is meanh@ul, or with s 2 1, even if h = trl
+
and s are both resliaed, not all of the 28 1 spin magnetic quantum number
ststes exist. Accordingly, the operator S cesses to be defined (with two excep
tions) in the limit M +0, and we must introduce m w vaGabfes for this eir
cumstance.
f n. order to deleb S we define the new position vector
and the restriction r > O is here validated as the Lorentz invariant energy
property P@> 0. The absence of certain helicity values is now manife
the noneommutativity of componenh of R, This htrimie ~oxzlocalityof m
lew particles is de~cribedby the unm&ainty principle
and
[h, T2]= 0.
The h v a ~ a n t
1["2 ,
,
can be assbed any pagitive v a b . The componenb of T act to change h by
&l,and t'hk Pvithout Itimi*. We now have
wfiieh is also used to verify that J generates the rotations of I", The significant
obmnta;tion is that X has eeawd to be ft Lorentz i n v a ~ a n t :
This faet, together with the unbounded nature of the h spectrum, ranginf; over
all inkgers or all integem ++, indicates that physically acwssible states would
exist for which (bk12is arbitrarily large.
We suggest the following verbal principle for massless particles: A zero
mass padicle is not completely XoealizabXe, but a finite degree of localizability
exists. The principle has the: following valid consequences. There is na aginless
zero mass partieb, for the eomrnutative position veetor R would be available
The same reasoning exelude s = 3 massless pa&ie1w for which space reflection
parity is meaningful. And the systems we have just discussed, with W 2> 0,
are condemned wholesale by the existenw of state8 that are unlwalized without
limit. There is a simple pattern for the kxtown or strongly caxljectured maesless
garlieles; their spins are given by 8 = Z4, cr = 1, 0,+X.
The conwpt of elementary particle in rellitivistie mechanics remains an
operational one, Lhat under the eonditiorzs of physicafi exeifa$ion available, if is
consistent to @sign a unique vazlue ta m, spin, and ather ehttracterisfic
invariant a(ltributes of the system. Far a set of n noninkraeti~gp & ~ i ~ the le~,
Lorentz generators of the whole system are giwn by the additive forms
The operators R and S for the total system must be obtained from the con
atmctim (13.43); one is not likely to produce them by an a pfiori definition,
Consider, for example,
13 Einstainian relativity 23
with the usual symmetrization understood in the last term. Thus, for a single
isolated prartiele, we have
The constraints
are compatible with the equations of motion, a t least to term8 linear in the field
strengths; this involves only the commutation relations for a free particle,
Why bid we not begin with a general theory of inkrating particles, specified
by variables r,, p,, S, a = l, . , . , n, and then proceed to follow the mation of
one particle under the infiuence of the others, as in the nonrelativistic discussion?
Quite simply, because no such &;eneraltheory exists, Apa& from the obviously
formidable algebraic task of stating the relativistic conditions on in_leraction
brms (smdl, deviations from nonrelativistic behavior pose no problem), the
atternpt founders on the failure of the assumption that there is a fixed number
of parlEticles, The relation between reiati~sticand nonrelativistic energy can
be exhibited as
1x1 fhe nonrelativistic limit where changes in H are small compared to each ma,
the conservation of P' generally demands, first, the conservation of each N,,
and then, Ghat of H. But if the kinetic and interaction energies contained in H
b o r n eotnp&mblewith in&edud m, valuw, one ean no longer oonclude th&
the Na mmsin c o ~ s b n t . It is tbe charak6stic featwe of mlativbtic padiele
dynamim that pafticles can be @matedsnd wanihilahd in high e n e r e en
@ounkm.
is assured if
TP'(z) = T'"(x).
The threedimensional form of these operators is
The brms involving two or more derivatives are such thizt lhey do not con
ffibule wbem intepations are pedormeb to eonstmct one of $he Loresnde genera
fors, We have indicated only the minimum n u m b r of d e ~ v a t i v erequired;
~
more generd possibilitks are introdueed by appropriitb generaliaa;tion of f , 8,
snd h, The% three functions are symmetrical wikhin each pair of indices, as
iZlu~tr~tedby
f n r r f p p  f nm1plr = fna.rrq (1414)
~fhilef and h are antisymmetrieaf under an. exchange of the pairs, as in
Anokher relation is
aOf m n * p q ( z ) Bmnrpg(Z) Q ~ ~ * ~ ~ ( c c ) . (14.16)
There is a simple example of a system for which none of the additional
derivative k m s appear, We begin with the energy and rnornentum densi%y
expressions thrtt are identified with the classical electromagnetio field:
(14.23)
Then, since
(lli)[Ek(x),T0@(2')1= cttmar 6(x  xP)Hm(z'), (14@24)
we get the infinilesinral response
~ E ( x )= &V (zOv+ xaO)E(z) &V X H(%). (14.25)
We add brief comments about more realistic system^, in ~ ~ b i the
c h electro
magnetic field interacts with other dynamical va~ables,If we are to maintain
the geometrical transformation properties of F,., the added terms in Toomust
not alter the computation just performed. That excludes from (Ex(z) , To'(z')]
any additional single derivative of a delta funetion, giving the general form,
and ecmstruet
This is the basis for an uneeftainty pfineiple stattlment about the aceuracy with
whieh values of T 1and !F2can be assigned in a even state. We firgt consider an
does nod enter, in comquence of the antir~ymmetryin.
application where f m"nnppa
the two sets of indices. Let T 1and ZT2 be partitions of Lhe total e n e w operator,
so that
@I(x)4@ 2 ( ~ zz=) 1. (14.32)
Since derivatives of v1 and of v2 diaer only by a minus sign, we find, simply,
Now choose vl (X) to be a, unit step function, defining a semiinfinib redan which
shares a, surface \dth the complementary volume defined by etz(x). With clS an
element of area directed from the latter volume, we get
This gives a eorreet acmunt of the rate a t which the enerw in each p r t i a l
volume changes, owirtg to the enerw flux acroas the common surface. Irxei
dentally, if the domain8 defined by v, and v2 had been regarded as disjoint but
approaching contact in a limit, the value abtsinied for the Il.igh&band side would
have b e n zero, while, if they had initiaEXy overlapped the eventual boundary
and then the cornman. volume had approached zero, the limiti~~g value of the
14 Critique af particle thaoriss 2r)
righthand side would have been twice the stated one. Thus, an alternative
evaluation uses the average of the two limiting definitions. Ar~stherchoice of
weigh%functions is
@ (X) .l @(X), VZ(~) xkv(~), (14.35)
which gives
When @(X) is a unit step function that defines precisely a finite volume, the
operahrs T t , T 2are the asmciated energy and its first moments* But no mean
ing can then be assigned to the products d,, d,v d,u, which calls seriously ints
question. the eonsiskncy of any operator field theory for which. $nanlpS1 (2) @ 0.
This gives a pPivileged position to that limited clslsl; of fundamental field variables
for which f does vanish,
The impact of this result is only slightly weakened by the follojving property
of physical systems that have vanishing fmnlpq.The funetion
where P;E:=2= P""z@and X is evaluated at the coordinrtte origin. The state x(z)[ )
is produced from the vacuum state by a localized excitation. To study the
pfdSele aspects of this excitcltion tve examine its spaerttime proipltgation
characteristics through the correlation %vithan analogous excitation having a
digerent localization :
The unitary operator fhnt describes the displacement from z' to z can be
exhibited in terms of i t s eigenvatues and the associated non~egativeHermitim
projection operators,
where
( d p ) = dpo d p , dpz dp3.
The values of fl that contribute to the integral, thwe for which F(p) f 0, must
conform to the physical sp~etral.requirements,
is a real, nonnegative function. The state X / ) selects from P(p) the subspace
with the angular momentum propexrlies implied by the rotational behavior of X ,
snd f ( p ) j.I. 0 at  P 2 = M 2 a~sertsthe existence of an excitation with those
physical parameters. Merely for simplicity, we only consider a scalar field X ,
which limits f ( p ) to dependence on the scalar p2.
There are three qualitatively difierenl possibilities that can be realietxi in
f(p) = f(MZ).
a. An isolated mass value appears in the spectrum,
For a given spaLial momentum, the time dependence of the field correlation
function contains the isolated frequency 'p = +(p2 +m2) This excitation
i s s stable pareticle. We n o b thaL should ~ ( sobey
) a finitedegree differentid
equation,
) o,
ul(a"~(~=
where
exp[ip. (X  X')]. (14.59)
If the field ~ ( zis) a fundamental dynamical variable, its equal time eornmutrztion
relations have a, kinemaitical bwia, I"cs typical af a sedar field thaL
Imagine no\' that the field X ( % ) is uncoupled from all others, and then.
obeys a linear digerentirml equation that gives f ( M 2 ) = b ( M 2  m:), Supipom
that when the physical couplings are restored a stttble particle still exists. Its
mass will be shifted by the interaction, m. + m, and f ( B f 2 ) will have multi
particle contributions in addition to the discrete mass term: f 6 ( d f a  m').
The sum wle thus requires that f < 1. If we are not inkrested in the details
of the particular excitation used to generate the psrticfe, but wish only to
describe the physical particle itself, 11ediseard the eonfinu~usmass cantribution
to ( X ( Z ) X ( Z ~ )and
, comespondingly adjust the scale of the correlation; function
by removing the factor f , This example has supplied the designation for the
general proceduw that transfers attention from the fundamental dynamieal
geld variables to the derived phenomenalogical ptarticle level. It is called
renormalisation,
More elaborate field earrelation functions give information about the
inkraetion of particles. Consider, for example,
~vfierethe various fields are the algebraic combinations of the fundamental
dynamical variables that contsin the pecrticles, a, b, c, d, respectively, in their
+
excitation spectra. Xn order to refer to the pa&icular rertcticm. c d 4a b +
(we do not consider here properties like electric charge that i n t r d u w the
distinction between partielee and antipsdiclw), the regions in. which the co
ordinates are placed mmt be appropriably &own. The points x and z q i e far
in the future of z" and xf"', while z is widdy separabd spatially from z' as ia zrr
from X'". Under these circumstances the renarmalization prowdupes that
isolate the physical particles can be applied independently, and the resulting
function of particle properties supplies the amplitude for the physical reetetion.
NOWrecall that the dynamical variables of quantum mechanics fa11 naturally
into two sets .tr.hich, at a given Lime, exhibit commutstivity or antieommuta
tivity, respectively, between a, pair of variables referring to diEerent degree8 of
freedom. I t is points in spacelike relation that play the Xathr role in operator
field theory. If x and s h r e suaieiently separated spatially that detailed corn
posite structure is not involved,
+ +
can be used ta derive the rewtian amplitude for b d + a e, If the two
eamelslion functions we have mention& %re known throu&oul the mulLiple
spaeetime domain, they are known for the re@onswhem xt aand 2" are in
like relation. But there they are equal, or diEer by a minus sign, depending
upon the statistics af particks b and c. According.Ey, the two function8 are
spacetime extrapolations or continuations of each o$her, The impfied connec
tions among digereat reaction amplitudes are usually referred to as eroming
relations.
Dynamics is explicit in oprrtlor field theoq, It is conveyd by the nonlinear
s t m ~ t u r eof the field equations obyed by Ghe fundamelltal dynamical va~ables,
They, in turn, imply equations carmect;ing the vafious &Id eorrelatiort funckions
84 Particles Chap, l
from which the latter can be constructed, in principle. Two radically different
situations occur, in practice. In the first, the interaeticlns are suaciently weak
that the particles of interest appear in the excitation spectra, of the fundamentstl
variables themwlves. This is the ~zssumedsituation in quantum electradynamics
where the particles are the photon and the electron (or muon). The equations
obeyed by the field correlation functions can be solved by ~ r t u r b a t i v eor itera
tive methods bawd on the mallness of the eharaeteristi~coupling constant
a = 11137.Q.8. The result@may be presented in, twa different ways, a t thct
unrenormrtlized field stage, or at the renormalized particle leveicl, The fieid
version contains divergent integrals, the renormalized stabmenti3 are finih an;d
in exceptional agreement with experiment, The fairly rapid convergence of the
renormalised expressions means that experiments do not probe to very high
moment%or very short distances. The underlying hypothesis of operator field
theory concerning the conceptual possibility of descriptions at arbitrarily small
distances remains unksted by the available evidence. This hywthesis is in
volved in the unrenormalized, field results, but whether &henonexi~$enceof the
expressions signifies the failure of the hypothesis, or merely the inadequacy of
the perturba'cive ealculational methods that are used, is premntly unknown, It
may be that opemtor field theory is unnecessafily dognatie about the physical
silpificanee of arbitrarily small volume elements. Totafly new concepts might
enter a t very large momenta, without altering the practical succesws that have
been obtained.
The other situation is that of &rang interaction physics. Here %hehypothesis
that whole families of particles are the dynamical manifestation of a feu?funda
mental field variables excludes the possibilit;y. that the excitation spectrum of
the latter contains the known. par%icles. These objects must b generakd by
combinations of the basic variables, Being iporant of the underlying dynamics
of the fundamental dynamical variables and lacking the computational methods
that could @v@the consequences of that dynamics, if it were known, one musk
fall back on speculations concerning the composib field structure of the known
partieles. And such speculations become interfwind in the more immediate
problems that are presented a t the phenomencrlo@cd level. Is it not possible
to separate particle phenomenolqy from speculations about particle stmcture?
Since a collision must respect the overall conservation of energy and momentum,
we write
thereby defining the transition matrix T. Only the momenta have been made
expfieit here, and the delta function is fourdimensionsf,
The resulting farm of the unitarity condition is nonlinear, relating matrix ele
ments of i(T  T?) to products of T' and T matrix elements. The probabilities
of transitions must have a Lorentz invariant significance. Xt is therefore asserted
that the S, and the T,matrix: elements must be invariant functions of their
arguments, This is partieuIarty simple %.hen slf parlicles are spinfess since it
requires that the ' I '
matrix elements be a funetion only of the independent
sealars (we ignore the possibility of pseudoscafars) that can be formed from the
N = n t nhomrnenta, which are individualy subject to the particle mass
relations, p: = m:. The number of such scalar combinations is 3N  10,
where the subtracted number counts the Lorentz trrtnsformatioh parameters,
+
Thus, in twopa&icle reactions, where N = 2 2, there are only two inde
pendent scalar variables, c~rre~ponding Co energy and scattefing anlSfe in the
cenkr of mass reference frame.
The constructive principle of Smatrix theory is the gostufab of analyticity.
It is =sunned that the physical reaction amplitudes, in their dependence on the
scalar variables, are boundary values of analytic functions of corresponding
complex variables. Since analytic functions are specified by the nature and
location of their sinwlaridies, the dietemination of the I8tter encompasses all
the physics that is admitted in Smatrix theory. Here are the words of some
enthusiasts: "One of the most remarketble discove~esin elementary particle
physics has been that of the existence of the complex plane,'' ". . . the theory of
functions of complex variables plays the role not of a mathematical tool, but of
tb fundamental description of nature inseparable from physics . . . .' T r o m the
viewpoint of analytic functions, the elements of T and are distinguished tts
boundary values of the same analytic function that refer to opposite sides of the
real axis for the relevant complex variables, The resulting discontinuity state
ment is the condribution of the unitarity condition toward determining the
aingularities of the transition matrix. But the postulate of analytieity also widens
Lhe scope of the unikarity condition to include the socalled crossed reactions.
The conversion,of an initial or incoming particle into s final or outgoing particle
is formlly exprewd by the substiLution pp + p@, as judged by the contribu
tion to the net energ5rmomentum balanee. This is to be achieved by rtnalyt;.rc
continuation, and the unitarity condit;ions for the various reactions that are in.
crossing relation give singularity information. a b w t me analyLic function in
various domains of its complex va~ables.As to whether this kind of information
8uEces: "The Smatrix is a Lorentzinvariant analytie function of all momentum
vafirtbles with only thow sixrmlarities required by unit~rity."
There is na explicit statement of dynamics in Smatrix theory. And the
p~sibilityof regardiw some partieles as fundamental and deriving o t b m r;ks
b u n d states is rejected as an urraeceptabfe stmeturing of the padicle concept,
distinguishing elementary and composite particles. To prevent just such a
distinction being made, it is proposed that, no matter which particles one uses
to construct composites, the same total particle spectrum emerges. This view
of dynrtmi~slselfconsistency is usually rehrred to as the "bootstrap" hypothesis
The discussion of Section 13 indicates that Smatrix Gheory is too dog
mslt3c in digmiming all reference to microscopic spacetime description, Whether
or not one wishes to recognize it, the! structure of the Lorentrr;group itself gives
meaning to spatial loealizability and temporal development, outside redons of
intense inkrzletion. The very nature of a collision involves a memure of spsee
time causal control, and the existence of even a limited microscopic spacetime
dewriflion indicaks Lhat cacusality is not likely to be restfieled to macroseopis
circumstances. It is widely recognized that the intuitive physical property of
causality in spaeetime must underfie the abstract mathematical asartion of
analytieiQ, Should one not be able to exhibit and exploit causdity as s eou
structive principle, thereby relegating analytieity to a secondary, derived role?
And as for the b8sic hypobbesis of Smatrix tl.leory, that the particle is the ulti
mate unandyzable entity, we again ask: Is it not possible to separate particle
phenomenology from speculations about partide structure?
SOURCES
The critical eornmentrs of the last section set the stage for the introduction of a
new theory of particles. I t is a phenomenologieal theory, dmignd to describe
the observd particle@,be %heystable or unstable. No speculations about the
inner stmeture of pa~ictesare introduced, bu"che road to a conceivable more
fundamental theory is left open. No abstract definition of particle is devised;
rather, the theory u8es symbolic idealization8 of the reali&ie procedures that
give physical meaning to the particle wncepL. The theztry is thereby firmly
grounded in %p&eetime,the amna within which the experimenter manipulates
hia tools, but Lbe question of an ultimate limitation to miero~eopiespacetime
dmchption is left open, with the decision re~mvedto experiment. Correspond
ingly, no operator fields are ursed. The compbmentary momentumspace
description plays an important role, but the possibiliw of ultimate limitations
on this space is not exciudd, and there is no appeal to andytieity in momentum
space. The constmetive principles of the new thwry are intuitive one&
causality and uniformity in spacetime. What emerges is a thcsory inkrnedictte
in position. between operator field theor;)r and 8matrix t'fimry, which rejects the
dogmas af each, and gains thereby a caleuXationaE erne and intuitiveness that
make it a worthy coatender ts displace the mrlier formulations.
The range of the term "particle" h.m been systematicalfy extended by
expe~merrtaIdiscovery. From the stable electron. and proton, to the Ionglived
neutron, do the rapidly decaying ?r and A, to the highly unstable p and N*,
there has k e n a progression to more energetic and sfiorbrlived excitations* It
Is now the normal situat.ion that a particle must be creawd in order ta study it.
And, in a general sense, that h also true of the very high energy stable particles
produced in accelerators. One ean regard aff such creation acts 8s cofli~ions.
The emence of such. a collision is that it occupies a finite, and to some degree
controllable, spacetime reeon wherein other particles combine to transmit to a
particular one thee properties that call it into exisknce and uniquely character
izie it. If i s psrt of the experimenter's creed that a new resonance not be admitted
Lo full status as ra particle until it h a been ob%rved wifh the same charaet;eiristies
in a number of diflerent reactions. Thus, if a pa&icle is defined by the collisions
that erettb it, the details of s sgecifie reaction are not; relevant and one ean
idealize the role of the other particles in the coIlision, recognizing th& their
funetion is solely to ~uppjtythe needed baiance of properliesthey eonstitute
the source for the particle of inderest. What survives in. the idealization is a
37
38 Sources Chap, 2
The individual creation and annihilation acts are not analyzed; the source is
defined as a measure of the whole process, as suggested by (~veanticipate a
particular variable factor)
21 Spin O particles, Wwk source 31)
Since these states;play the analogous role in the new eoordinah ssystern, they are
assaciated with a spacelike surfaee that is displaced by XQn the initi~lco
ordinate system. But all that is significant in the probability amplitudes
( p l ~  ) R and ( ~ + j ~ is) ~the relation between the spacelike surface and the
spacetime localization of the murees, for the vacuum staks are invariant.
Equivalent to the displacement of the surfaee by X" is the rigid dilsplaeement of
the source by Xp. This is expressed by K r X , where
R(x) K ( z 4
E X), (21.4)
or
X(z)=K(z), Zfi=z@X'. (21.5)
Now,
= eiPXK,(p), R.(p) = @  ' P X K a ( ~ ) , (2 1.6)
which shows clearly that the relation between the complementaryr coordinate
and momentum source desriptioas is given by Fourier transformation:
In exhibiting N we have set z0 = 0,sinee this is the origin of time, and used an
alternative form of the symmetrised product of r with The coordinate
SQ Sources Chap. 2
vvith a similar statement for K,@). The implied infinitclsinnd change of H,(%)
or
Ka(x) if3
6K(z) = 160 r X V +
6~ * (ra, + Z'V)]K(Z)
= 6%" (~,K(z)~ (21.13)
where
6z" = 6 d r x , . (21. f 4)
This result,
fZ(z) = K ( z t 8 4 , (21.15)
or
R ( z ) = K ( ~ ) ,~ " = z ~  8 z ~ , (21.16)
when conzbined with the displacement response, assrrrb that the soume functions
of qinless pafticfes, K ( z ) , behave .dsr scaler functions under the tramformalions
of the Larente poup.
An important corollary is that the ehoiee of K(z) as a real flanetion would
have a Lolrent~invariandmeaning. That is in, sharp earrtrast with the non
relativistic situation, where N + mr and'p + p2/2n. Then, if we consider
on1y boosts for simplicity,
and
in which the additional terms are negtigitale urrder weak source conditions.
Furthermore, it suffices to use sourcefree values for the factors of ( 0 + [ 1 , ) ~ and
(~jl,~ = )( ~
I ~ # \ o  ) ~namely
*~
apart from phase factors \\.hick serve only to ensure dllat, in the resulting
relation,
) ~ ( l p l ~  ) ~ * ,
( o + ! ~ P= (21.25)
both single particle states are referred to the same spacelike surface. Tliis
connection bettveen ereation and arlnihifatioxr probability amplitudes earl also
be presented as
i(o+i = [i(lpl~)K]*. (21 .xi)
Thus, with a permissible choice cf arbitrary phases, the source functioxls K,(s)
sad K,(%) are reciprocal complex conjugates. The simplest possibility, and thc
one with r~hiehr,ve begin, is
a real function, We. now unite the various detaiis and state our explicit defini
@P)  1
K , = ( ~ U , ) " ~ K ( ~ ) ,dw, = 
( 2 ~ 1 32p0
and

amplitude ( 0 + 1 0  ) ~ 2 1, and occasionally produces a single particle, as
characterized by ( l , l 0  ) ~ 1 . After the emission source has ceased to operate, the
re~ultingvacuum or single particle state persish unehawed until we e n k r the
spacetim region of an absorptian source K l ( s ) . Its effect in detecting a single
particle is described by (0+j1,)~1, and we thus return to the vacuum state. The
eompleee pmeess is represented by
On, making explicit the single particle creation and annihilation probability
amplitudes, we get
where rt, refers to the weak 8ouree limitation. The functions K l ( z ) and K2(x>
are the disjoint parts of the tots1 source in this situation, which is given by
The two equivalenL ~ontributionsof the type &;K2 then aupply the ~trueture
of h+ for a caustzl arrangement:
The explicit constructions of A+(z  s" may appear to refer only to c~lusal
or timelike relations between the points z aad d.But in fact the_ygive meaning
ta this funetion. everywhere, The only possible dificulty would be that, when z
rand sf are in spseelike relation, where causality hits no invariant meaning,
different values might be obtained depcfing Upon the choice of coordinate
system. This does not happen. Since dw, and eke"'"' are invariant structuresp
there is no harm in choosing a coordinate system for which z0 = so', and
is indepndent of the ambimous sign, for the integsal depend8 only upon
(X  X')%= (z  z ' ) ~ .As a result, there is no longer any indication in (21.35)
of the initial causd arrangement of sources, and that stmcturr? is applicable to
an arbitrary disposition of ~ourcm. This spacetime extrapolatim must meet a
mvem k~t, however, We are nomr able to compute the probability that, despite
the intemention of the sources, the vacuum state persists, It is
by the 8ubsdilut;ion
ilzD  4 lz4  z:I,
\vhieh requires that the ordering of the real numbers zO,zO'is mapped into the
same ordering of the real numbers Q, X:, We remove a factor of i in &fining
Even better, since it reproduces the eorrecf limiting forms, is the inequality
One can; connect the Minkowski and Euelidean. descriptians by equating the
source strengths associated with corresponding voluple elements
and the righthand side is a real number, which, is less than unity.
The physical vacuum amplitude can also be reeo.verc3.d from the Euelidean
version, by the earnpitex substitutions
2 4 r iz0, p* + ipop (2 X. 58)
provided they are understood to mean the limit of complex rotations M the
angle approaches lr/2 from smaller values,
z', p4 r exp
in which, despite various scale changes, E retains its meaning as a, prameter thaf
46 Sources Chap, 2
(21 .fix)
where
intmduces the Cauchy principal value for integrals. The contour integral
evaluatbn
would still be given by (21.37) and (2X.38), but differcent masses would appear
in the two causal forms, Then we could no longer conclude that B+(z  2')
had a unique edrapolation into spaeelike regions. I t is the principle of space
time uniformity that demands equal masses for the two kinds of particle, which
are identified as particle snd antipartick. The Euclide&n postulate produet38
the same conclusion through. the absence of an invariant distinct;ion btween
24  Z: > O and 2 4  2; < Q, which permits only one mass pammeter to
appear.
In view of these remarh the definitions that relah sources to singleparticle
production and annihilation prObabi1iw amplitudes mu^& be extended ta
Accordingly, we have
We have now exhi*bit& twa indepadent murces, with their wsoeiated particles,
But the fact that these particles have the same mass (and spin) implies that the
dwompo~itioncan be done in an infinib variety af ways, camesponding to the
p h w transformation8 of eomplex sources, which naw appear as twodimensional
Euelidean rotations :
and
do not produce singleparticle states of definite charge. They refer to the eom
plementary property of charge symmetrythe states turn into themselves or
their negatives, respectiveIy, when positive and negative eharges are inter
changed. A matrix presentation of this transformation is
K(s) + rqK(z1,
where the real matrix
but it is the Euclidean postuiaite that suppliea the general btzsis for this in
v a ~ a n c e , The reflmtion of the time coordinate inverts the causal order of
sourem and inbrchangrzs creation and annihilation. This is evident from the
momentum form of the source transformation,
K(P) + K(P)?
and thus
K,,*K:, K,K:+
or
which asseds fhe &bf~enceof coupling between diEerea6 singk particle exchange
re@ons. Then, since the individual sources are weak,
The slam form ztpplies to twocomponent real sourees, and for empXex source8
if bwomea
The ems& arrangement also ennsbles us do analyz;e the eomplete proem into an
initial multiparticle emission act, represented by the probability amplitude
((E)l 0 _ ) ~ 2 , and a subsequent absorption proeess, described by (O+l { n ) ) " ~ ~
where {n) indicates the collection of physical sttributes that distinguish the
various npartiele states. The resulting causal snalysis of the vacuum amplitude
is
( ~ , l o  > ~= C (O+ W n))Kl({E)IQ)Kz* (22.10)
In 1
where the multiparticle label is realized by the collection of integers {B,). The
avidenf interpretation of n, is a particle o e ~ ~ p a f inumber
o~l a~aciftt;edwith the
indicated physiesl properties. This is confirmed by the response of the multi
+
particle states to the source translation K(,) + K(% X), nvhich gives
Io)~
((3 eiPX((n)Io)~, (Q+/ (n))K + (@+l{R) (22.14)
The btal energymomentum thus oblained,
displays the additive contributions of the particles present in the state under
consideration.
The probability amplitudes must meet the following total probability or
complekness test :
and indeed
22 Spin O particles. Strong source 63
No& how the vacuum amplitude has been used in two distinct ways. Through
the consideration of a causal arrangement, relative multipartick annplitudcs are
obtained :
where q == &l is the charge label that distinguishes partiele and antiparticle.
A combined source trainslation snd phase transformation changes these states as
follows :
( {n)1 ~ eiQveiPx( $4 Io)~?
0 ~ ) + (O+I jnj )K + (O+I {R)) R e  i Q p e  i P X
(22.21)
where
Q = C
PQ
%,,g, = C
PQ
%p,$ (22.22)
and jr, Vz, are standard symbols for spherical Bessel funetions and spherical
harmonies. The discrete angular momentum quantum numbers
cation *
G h the infiGhiaaaf ~ I i m
b d gXw da. Thus
md one has anly to ohan@ the labis in. (22.13) ia obdsin tfie souroe mpm
wnbtion of tbe ntsw mdtipartielie &W. The p n e d i s a t i o ~fr, wmplex
is &km immdab. A m d n g to the uthd and@depnde~liwsf
which is em(a"w), the sowee robtiorr indie~Mby
where
~em(sfi+(zi ~2)= C
n! perm.
A+(zl  g * * A+(%  )
.
:
g (22.37)
defines the pemsnent, a determinant without minus signs. Clearly displayed
here are the e h t i v e sources for nparticle emkion and absorption, together
with the funofion thaf represent8 the noninbrac$ing propagation of the n
peiebs, The fatbr ia syrnmetfigd among tfirt spwetime m r d i n a b ~of the
particles which, together with the unrestricted occupation numbers a, = 0,1,
2, . . . , proclaim8 that we are dwribing pa~iclestbspt Bo~eEinstein
stathties.
The f a ~ l i acharaokristics
r of this statisdies are dso appwent in the answer
to $he follawiq qumtion. Whad are the vduw of the general prob&bility
This is to ask how the effeetivenegs of a Bource in
emitting or absorbing particles is influenced by the prior presence of particles.
We cornider the f o l l a ~ g gc ~ w %~i6uation
l A strong source Kg(%)aeLs first to
creab pa&icles, vvhich are subaeqwntly idueneed by the probe souree Ko(z>,
afkr which the particles are annihilated by the detmkian source ,Kl(z) :
which generalize the initial definitions (21.28) while retaining the weak ssuree
limitation. I n particular, the probability for the emission of another partide,
show8 the additional stimulated emission, that is characteristic of B,E. statisf ics,
As a preliminary to picking out the pneraX transition amplitudes, we
construct the probability amplitude ( { R ) +l {n) ) K , which has the same initial
a d final configuration and, in. that sense, is a generdi~afiontof $he vacuum
amplitude. This object is extracted by retaining only equal powers of K:, and
K z , in the expansion
which applies to each momentum cell independently. For the process of inter@@%,
then,
c
P
+
(iK:,iKop iKgPiKs,) + +
[l iKgpn,iKop]
P
({n)+i{n))K= exp
where
The last term is rso bvritten in order to maintain the symmetry in x and 3'. The
Spin O particles, Strong source fiT
Note that the probability amplitude ({R)+l {nJ)K reduces to unity for K = 0,
which means that the initial and final multiparticle staks are r e k m d to the
same time or spaelike surface, as is appropriate to a reasonabIy loealiged probe,
To find the probability amplitudes in which initial and final ~ t a h are
s no8
the same, we do not return to the general eonstrmeLion given in (22.40), but
use (in)+l In) directly, in the manner of the vacuum amplitude. Thus,
coxzsider the ectusal sou=@arrangement
K(z1 = (4 4 K 2 ( ~ 1 ,
tvhich implies Chat
The explicit terms indicated for a given momentum describe the mverd processes
in which, respectively, no ehange in particle number oecurs, an additiond
particle is emitted, an incident particle is absorbed. Higher p w e m , containixlg
more complicated procemes involving several particles, are relatively negligible
for suficiently small do,; the probability for emitting two particles into the
momentum range do,, for example, is  ( d ~ , ) ~ But . we must not let this
apparently innoeent sirnplificaLion pms without comment;. The infinikgimd
chzbracter of h, will be vitiated if there is an inordinate sensikivity to p produced
by the appearance of very large coordinate intervals (e*'X). T o put it more
physically, we recall that we are dealing with a beam of parlieleg interwting
with a probe source. What we have done is eorreet if the probe is placed well in
the interior of the beam where there is no ~ignificantposition dependence. It
trill fail if the probe is outside or near the boundaries of the beam. This is a
68 Sources Chap. 2
where the products refer to the various particles that are (e)mitted or (a)bsorbed.
+
The two statements are equivalent, if it is &mitt& that ( { n 11, + I {n f 1,) )K
and ( { n )+l{n)J K differ negligibly, owing to the infinitesimal nature of do,.
Now we face the consistency test associated with the alternative uses of the
probabiiity amplitude. From the completeness of the fins1 or initial multi
particle sfates we deduce
~ ~ I ~ W + I {= n
~ I  [ )l +~ (np
I ~ + ~ ) I K+~ ,I I~K ~ I ~ I
whereas, by direct calculation,
I(In)+lh)JKI= exp [ 1(dx)( d d ) K ( z )Re ( l / i ) A ,
ln +(X z3~(2')]
(22.55)
and
Re ( 1 /i)A l, +(X  X') +
= ~ e / d o , ( 2 r c ~~ ) e ' ~ "  ~ * ' . (22.56)
Tben we have
whieh is the same Euelidesn form that is obtained from (o+~o)~,as the strong
wurce genera;liga$ion of (21.57). The Euclidean version of the veteuum ampli
tude is a red number lying in the i n t e n d htween 0 and 1. The vacuum.
amplitude (oIo+)~ i s regained through the substitution
Pot
with the usual djuslable scale for r. One must also remember that the ordering
of variables is retained throughout the transhmation. Limits of integration do
not change, therefore, and
(22.77)
while
(22.78)
which confirm in alternative ways the stated transformations.
We shall now use the causal structure of the theory to give a complete
derivation of the unitstrity praperty. This is done within a very limited physical
context, of course, but it is clearly a general procedure. For our present purposes
we replace the causal labling K l , K z by K[,, K,+,. (While this may seem .to
be still another use of the overburdened signs, it will turn out to be consistent
with the notation.) Let the time T be located between the regions defined
by the two component sources. Introduce a new time coordinate for z0 > T by
reflection at T,
sncl then transform this time interval in, the manner just diacussed;
The immediate effect is to replace z', which is earlier than T to the same
extent, %hatthe original time exceeded T . The transform& Kt) souree also
occupies a refiected position, earlier than T. Before this ontjration is p r f o r m d ,
the vacuum amplitude has the following composition:
where the appearance of the last term indicates the causal arrangement. When
the transformation is carried out, the quadratic K(+, term remains unawarc! of
what happens letttw, the quadratic K(, term responds in the known manner
[h+ +A] without reference to the other terms, and the last term changes
only by a minus sign arising from
the influence of the em"' factor, which is not compensated by the refleetion that
is al80 being used. f n the latter the inkpation limit8 are reversed to maintain
82 Sources Chap. 2
[F
= e . ~ ( i ~ (  ) p )(W+)$]
*
= c (01 { n ) ) K (  ) ( { nIOJK(+)
(nl
)
( O  I O  ) ~ (  ) ~ ~ ( +(22.86)
).
As the notation indicates, the picture has become that of a system evolving in
time from the initial vacuum state under the influence of the source K(+)(%)
and then traced back to the initial state in the presence of the source K()(%).
It is not the physical system that goes back in time, of course. What is reversed
is the causal order of the states that are being compared. If the two sources are
identical, we must regain the initial state; that is,
K (  ) ( z ) = K ( + ) ( z )= K ( x ) (22.87)
implies
( O  I O  ) ~=
~~ (Ol{n))K({n)10JK = 1, (22.88)
inI
where the last terms appear in that form to produce the necessary symmetry in
Xand X'. We recognize the identity (22.67).
22 Spin b particles. Strong sourea 63.
where K z and .Kz#act prior to the source K, snd intfoduce the earresponding
cauwl analysm :
({a)10JK'+' = C ( {n)+l
What we mu8t verify is that all refemnce ts the source K(%) disappeam from
(22.862, l e ~ ~ on1
n gy
But, under the given causal circumstances, L\ + id() and A+ +i~'+',
which completes the verification.
The probability amplitude (oIo)~[I*~(+~ is a1w useful for the direct
eornputation of various expectation vaium. L&
This is the expectation value of eiPX for the states produced from the vaeuum
by the action af the sourn K, Sin= only the relative dhplawmenl of the tvvo
muram is sipif cant, we have
&,(eiPx  I ) ~ K ( ~ )=
/ ' exp [T (e'  1)
On considering infirritmiml digplacements, we learn that
Thus, the werage total number of particles creakd and the vasuum persisLence
prab~bilityare &implyreletted, according to (22.17) :
(22,107)
One digerentktion with re~pectto X, at X = 1, @ves
The causal relatioxls among thege functions are the same m in the v ~ e u u m
situation although b\$)(z  s'), for example, is no longer an exclusively positive
.frequency function, I n deriving expectation values we mu& note the$ the
amplitude ((B') +l {n))K responds to the translation K(%)r K(z X) with +
the factsr
@x~ti(P(%')  )XI, (22 1113)
since?both initial and final s l a k s are now mlevant, Some results are
(22.1 14)
and
(fib%;.)  (nL)(nk.) = bPPf((nk  ~ ~ ) ) ( 2+
1 11).
~ (22.115)
IW3 Souross Chap, 2
Accordingly,
P
~,+I" ,M): =a
P
IK@I~, (22.121)
whib individual prcibrabilitiw are given by
on. using a familiar Berne1 function. expansion. The introduction of the gropag*
tion function (22.59), with its atkndant stmcturers, generalbw (22, X 16) do
the probability amplitude ({B)1 {n) ) K (  ~ ~ K ~ + ~ .
249 SPIN 1 PARTICLES. THE FNOTQN
Before developing tbe general source regresent&tion,for padic1es of arbitrav
spin, we shall give an dementary discussion of some: gpecial examples whiah are
of great physical importance, The exponentid form that has b n mhbiished
for the vacuum amplitude, within. Ghe eontext of spinless pa&iclm, embodie~
the physicaf pas~ibiIityof producing any number of independent w t s af sin&
particle emimion and abwrption, These gpacetime properties &re independent
of the spcific spin of the particle. The latkr ean only influence the mare detailed
stmcture of the source. It is clear that, if spin O p~r$ialf3~~ are described by a;
scalarsource, sources transforming as vecbrs and tctnsar~of va~orrsranks must;
refer to pttrticles of unit and higher spin. A vector source, designated m J P ( % ) ,
is the obvious candidate to de8cfibe unit spin particles. T h m m certain
obstacles, however. This source ha8 four component^, iin contratst wiLh %hethree
independent sources one should associate with f i e three spin pawibilities that;
are accessible to a nongero mass particle, Thics pre~umabliymeans that J'(z) is
a mixture of a unit spin source with a souree of spinless particles, corresponding
to the possibility of forming a scalar function by differentiation, a,Jg(z). And,
independently, W ob~ervethat should we do no more than replace the resll
scalar murw K(x) by the real vector s o w e P(&
(o+Io)~ = exp fdz) (d~"J@(z)A+(z  z"rJ,(x")
we should eneaunder a serious p h y s i ~ ddificufty, for
The result is simply 151*,which is positive, and which contains three independent
source components, transforming among themselves under spatial rotation, as
is appropriate to unit spin.
We note that (l/m)@ is a unit timelike vector, which can be supplemented
by three orthogonal spacelike vectors, 4x, obeying
pp4x = 0, 4?eppxr = 8xxn. (23.8)
They give a dyadic construction of the metric tensor,
The symmetry of g@' indicates that complex conjugation of the three e$, produces
a unitary transformation on the set. With the definition
which implies
Jp(z) = J';(2)+ JS (4,
(o+~o)' = (o+~o)'l exp [/doput (P) *(gpv+ m  2 ~ p ~ v ) i J ; ( ~(o+Io)
)] "
where n,x = 0, 1, 2, ... again indicates B.E. statistics. The consistency be
tween the two uses of the vacuum amplitude is obvious.
23 Spin 1 particlas. The photon 69
One can choose the unit spacolike vectors 6~to be real. The orthogondity
requirement
0
P epk = P 0epx (23.15)
displays the role of p in providing a reference direction. If epx is perpendicular
to p, the time component e$, vanishes. Let epl be such a real unit vector,
Then
and, equivalently,
mid the reder is warn4 not 4x1 confum the letter m, u d in subseript~to dtcrtnoh
a rnaeetic quantum. numhr, with m, appearing e1cpXieit;lg in i f s mle ws particle
m m , The above ~tmetureis mch that
23 Spin 1 particles. The photon Tt
(23.36)
On combining the various contributions, we get the required form:
dadp(p)' (g, + m'p,p.)JY (p) =
pDimx
Jpjm hJp0jmh, (23.371
where nolv
L = X X (lJi)V,
(It is unfortunate that the cornbination of two wellestablished no.Latioaal
conventions produces things like ji.) Incidentally this type of aourct: van&he?3
for ji = 0. Similarly, we find that
It is seen that the sources designated as X = 1 , 2 depend only upon J(z), and
that in the form V X J(z), while far the Lhird @pe of source we have, effectively,
and identify K(%),in the limit m 4, m the gouree of a nassfess gero spin
particle. The latter would be oompletely independent of the residual photon
muree, however, and since m .= 0, s = O particles sre unknwn experimentally,
in %ny event, we only eansider photons in stating the source dessc~pfiorm:
(o+Io)~= exp
(23.45)
W"(%)
=: 0.
Sincej = Q dws not appear in the twa other soum Lype~,t h k is the counkvarl
af the abmnce of rtero helicity.
We have arrived a t the ratrietion fo two pola~zationor helicify s$alw for
Lhe photon by a limiting procedure that began with massiw unit, spin padides.
Now let W obtaixz this result directly, by trsiag the photon source desc&ption
@venin (23.45). The consideration of a causal arrangement,
J""(3;") J!(z) I J$(r), (23.W)
impfies
(O+IO) = (O+IO) Jg exp (o+[o)". (23.51)
The dysdie represenlalion for g,, given in Eq. (23.9) is not ap;propriak here
dnw p"" is now a null vector,
pg = 0. (23.52)
Let FP be obkained from p"" by mversing the rnotion of the * o h ,
+
Then pl" 'p and p"  pp am,rmpectively, fa timelike and spmelike vector.
They are ~uppbmentedby two orthrtgonal uniL spaelike veebm @gx,
to give the d y d i ~
coxlatrwtion
which k the desired partide exchrzngs form. If is also impGcsd by (23.54) that
the two have aero time component and, as spatial vecton, are perpendicular
to p. This k s selfcontained desefiption of the k m tramvem8 witatima that
art3 pemithd to photons.
It bm been recomized earlier that a
s concept that is invarirtnt under proper orthoehronous Lorentr transformations.
One &odd be able fo make mare evident thL wpwt of tbe photon helioity
@ t a b .A d we should like to under~bndwhy the M e i t y slates fasve appeared
psired afthough no overt reference fa e?gatiai refieetion h= been made, b t us
begin with the remark that the conservation eonditiop imposed on JP($) is
sadisfied identiaally if
J@(x)= dPMp"z), (%a.58)
where
MP"(x) = MY"(a;).
We introduce the eoncepd of the dual to an anti~ymmetricsl
The 1aGbr property indieabs that eaeh of them objects hm only three inde
pendent components, as i l l ~ s t r ~ by
%d
Why can one not modify this phobn dwriptim by odtting J',x(z>, a y ,
and themby prduee a theory with only positive hdicity phsbna~tFor tbe same
reamn that one cannot have a theory in which only p~itivelycharged p~&icltls
occur; it would violak %hepfinciple of hipwetime uniformity, To d k u m fhb
point in more detail, consider the cantribution to %hev ~ u u r nanaplitude
ated with the emi~sionand submquent abhiavtian of a p 4 t i v e helicity photon
where the c a u d 1abds 1, 2 have been displaced for &reah1~" elafi*y. We are
jwgified in writing g,, &nee the e s q u i v h t palariakbtion vector eummation
rduces to the appropriafe positive helieity hms, in vi&ue of (23.71). The
compbte sortme coupling should b linear in
and in
J;s(~=
) J;l(z)t + 5;1(2)~ (23.73)
and the particles dehieribd here mwt also be of n;wo m if a unique splleetinre
extrapoltbtion is fo be acbievd. T h w antipa&iclr?s am t;he negative helicity
photons,
J'+s(~)'= Jtl(z), (23.77)
and the additional krm ean be rewfi6bn as
(dz)(dar')JI", (z)T (23,78)
This struetum indieaks that $he scale of significant T variation ia set by Ix  X'[.
If the sources vary little, in the time intervals that are msociakd with the
distances characte~sticof the instantaneous digt~bution,one can i p o r e the r
dependence in J@(x,z0 & 47) and evaluate
This ~ v e the
s foXIowirrg form to the vacuum amplitude:
(0+j0}~= eup (23.93)
where
One reeognism here the aeeumulakd phmf?;change of s state that has a time
vafiable energy, E(xa). When a stesdystate regime is established, we are led to
asgociste with it the energy value
whieh is a s&aternentof the Coulomb and Ampbrim laws of charge and current
interactions* This shows haw the principle of spacetime uniformity provides
the logical connection befvveen the properLies of photons and the chsmekristics
of quasistationaq charge distributions.
There is one suLtLleLy hem we should not overllook. One cannot produce a
complettlly arbitrary statie charge distribution. The local conwrvatioa condition
78 Sour Chap. 2
pm~4d the sourn is wnlind fo some finite ~patialre@on. Being wro in the
i&tbl muurn s h b , the bbl ch~rgemmains Piera, We m y picture initially
mmpe p ~ i t i v and
e negative charge distribution8being separaM, maved
abut anb then m o m b h d . But them is another way of viming the
in4duction of a charge &t~butionintto an emp%yredon, It requirw rmomil;
iaig m ly than is wusl tha$ a physied dme~ptionrefern only to the
fi~b re@on which h under the exp~menbr'smntrol. The iniCial
and final vacuurn ~tatesp&ain to s boundd threedimemionaf re@an, W e
g on, oubide the walls We thus &pp~ci&%e that an arbitrary charge di*
Critouticrn can b produced by the t r a a ~ p dof charge acrom the boundary, into
the mdon of inter&, and that thil charge distribution can be dismanlled
uldirxrtabIy by withdradng id across the boundaq.
and are five in numbr. The sources for specifie slates are then identified as
and
The noerttion already indicates that them is only one conceivable identification
of this v e e t a ~ a lpropertyit is enerwmomentum. Unlike photon ~ources,
which hme a unique measure through the electric charge inhrpretation, grraGton
gources are eonfranted with an independent sale ori@naling in Lhe mechanical
significance of T,.. We provide an empirical conversion factor by writing
, the second
The interaction energy between the Sun, staLioned at fBe o ~ G nand
test body with source distribution l,,(x, zO)is given by
K
E ~ ~ ~ , (= ) GM
z '
where
2. Let the test body be a light beam for whieh t = opZ= O. The interaction
enerw with the 8un thus exceeds it%Newlonian value (replacing mass with total
enerw) by a faetor of tw, That is afso the increase of the deBwtion angle of
light over the Nefftonian wlue, whieh is Einstein's result For a direct cdcrtla
tion we compare the acquired transverse momentum Mrith fhc: longitudinal
momentum of the h a m , which pmses act a distanee p from the Sun. The deflee
3, The same inkraction reduces the speed of light by the factor l  2(GJ(r/R),
e energy of a phobn is pi (l  2GMIR) and differentiation with respect
d n ~ the
fo p gives the velocity. This &et has b e n oherved by mmuring time delltys
in radar echoes from the inner pl%neb, We eonsider the superior eortjunetion of
a planet, with the line of aight from the earth passing at distanee p from the
Sun. Then the abntieipated additional time delay for the echo is
whem z, and z, are the distances, from the point of closest approach to the SW,
to the earth and the planet, re~pectively. The coefficient in the differential
relation
4, The mosC subtle and inkrwting test is, of eourw, the perihelion precegsion.
of planetary orbib, We fimt consider the carreetion to the Newtonian ptential
enerw
k" = GMm/R (24.44)
we have
where
8rC 8ources Chap. 2
And, finally, there is the contribution to the energy density to@that is assoeisted
with the gravitafisnal inLeration between the planet and the Sun. This is
not locslilred on eilher mass, but is distributed in space in a way that can be
esl~ufibtedwiLh suEaientP preeisisn from the Newtonian field stren@h:
and is the angular momentum per unit planetaq mass (it is often defignated
by h). Here we have
and
the matrices at1 are antisymmetrical and therefore Hermitian, while the see are
symmetrical and skewvHermitian. It was preordained that not all the S,,
matrices could be Hermitian, for the discussion of Section 11 shows that the
open structure of the Lorentz group precludes any finitedimensional realiza
tion of the group. This injunction is not applicable to the attached Euclidean
26 Parti~Ieswith arbitrary integer spin 87
@xp[=tr@(p
* s/lpt)I e x p [ &(p
~ s//pl)] = rp0 & is,
(25.18)
\{?here
sinh B = lpllrn, cash @ = (25.19)
Its vmificatian proceeds m s t simply by eonsidering cornponeas parallel and
pewendicullar to p. The former reduces to the defining digerentiai equation
d@(lpl)ldIpl= l/pO,
and the lat%erto
88 Soureas Chap, 2
is emily understood. The commutation relations for the sp, are simplified by
introducing the linear combinations indicated by
and
6:. replacing the ..s, The use of matrix representstions with imaginary .8,
is required to h consistent with rest S(%),as we have mentioned before,
The compact notation used in \vriLing (25.36) obscures an essential point,
We are desc~binga particle of definite spixl, but embed it in a larger system
when we employ constructions like (25.26). tlceordingly there must h premnt
atl the left of B(p)S(p), say, an explicit election of the states of interc;st, We
shall illustrate this, and a t Ghe mme time @ve a simple example of the eonncc
t b n bt\vef?nfhe pre~entmatrix approach and the earlier pro~edures,by Gfioosing
which exploits the antisymmetry of the Pauli matrix cz, as (25.43) depends
upon $he symmetry of the three ~ 2 ~ The
k . latter proprty is also expressd by
notation gives
= 4 t r I@
(dop)1'2~p~ e:b(p)#Jyl (P)~(P)]
= &:Jp:~,(p),
where
b(p) " =p lP@
pi'lpll*
We first note that
e',; = tr [c.e?b(p)crPb(p)]
in which the form of the second factor depends upon the HermiCian naturt? of
b(p) and the a;, The following identity expresses the role of the four matrices
2v2g, LLBan orthonormal basis for 2 X 2 matrices:
(trapX)(tra,%f)= Ctr @X) (tr o V )  (tr X)(tr )'l
+
and
*[tr (rN@')  (tr bJl)(trG')] = gfiV, (25.63)
tvhich gives
We have nmr reproduced all the covariant p r a ~ r t i e sof the three polarization
vectors for unit spin, When the third axis in (25.44) is ideatifid with fhe
direction of the momen't;urn vector p, the explicik expresions obtained from
(25.53) are just the heficity l a b 1 4 vectom (23.28,29). LneidentalXy, an
using the singlet rather than the tripjet functions, we get the farm
where the individual makriees set upon the appropriate index of %hesource
...pQ',"
&l1). ....p(p). (25.67)
urhere the secand form refers to the rest frame of the momentum f . The num
ber of independent components possemed by the symmetfical threedimensisnal
tensor Sh,...ks, + +
namely i(n I) (n 21, agrees with the number of states ex
hibited by a 8ymmetricaX collection of n unit spins. The total spin quantum
25 Partitles with arbitrary integer spin 93
Xn view of the btal symmetry of the tensor, this property guarantees the
vanishing of the trace for any pair of indiees. The problem thus p a s d is a
familiar one. The polynomial of degrcse 1~ given iu (25'72) is a solution of
Laplace's equation according to (25.73). With z2 set equal to unity, it is a
spherical harmonic of degree n. T o identify the coefltieients Gnmt it S U % C ~ S to
consider the single nonvanishing component S33...3= 1. With 'g = I, = p,
we encounter the poIy nomiaI
This generalizes the construction glven for n = 2, Eq. (24.5), and produces
symmtfic hnsom of rank n that obey
~ ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ) ~ f i ~ ~ ~ Q? (25.77)
 ~ ~ f i , ( ~ )
and, for n = 1,
refers to the spatial momentum. p. Only for p = 0 can one exhibif an sigen
vector of R,, a state of definik parity. As in the discuion of continuous
Lorente transformations, what is relevant to the probability amplitude ( 1 ~ 1 0 ) ~
is the relettionship between the description of the padicle state and the c h a m 
terization of the source. The tr%nsforaned padiele sLateeis repmsented by a
correspondingly transformed source which illustrabs the gentjral linear response
in which 'F is any null vector with"p 00,such that p p f 0. The absence of
any change when p*%, E=:O assures the ewivalence of the two structures for the
application of interest. The new version of II: is given by
+
Considered in the rest frame of the timelike veetor pp $P", the orLhogoasl
veehr pp  p@ has only spatial components, doubling the parlicle's momentum,
and we recognize that. the subspace dected by 8,, is the twodimensional
Euelidean plane perpendicdar to the momentum of the particle.
If only hcslieitiw X = fn are to be represented in the source eoupliing
(25.103), the tensor n must be irreducible with respect to forming traces in
98 Sources Chap. 2
where
and
There are two simple alternatives for constructing a spin 4 particle description,
in the sense of Eq. (25.261, namely
where the
the last statement b i n g the malization of Eq, (25.33). Since space reflecLion
induces n , n without ehanghg s, it is r e p r e m u by a matGx that eom
mutes with ar and anticommutes with pz, The only matricea with those eharac
teristics arc: pl and ps. We choose the lathr arbibrarily and multiply this anti
symmetrical matrix by i to get the real space reflection m a t h
which obeys
The spme refleetion matrix appears in another role on considering the real
matrix ms~ciated'VVith an infinitesimal Lorexltz; tr&nsfamatianfef. Eq. (25.9)f:
The validity of this statement for the finite tran6farmations of the groper
orthoclrronous group is assured by $he composition prverty of succeiclsive
26 Spin ) particles. FermiDirac statistics 101
transformations,
( L ~ L ~ ) ~ T .=
L L~TLTT.LIL~
~L~ = L;~.L, = 7.. (26.16)
The relation (26.15) also holds for the spacereflection transformation, since
r.Tr. = 1 (26.17)
combines the antisymmetry of r. with the iterative property (26.10). The
appearance of the matrix r, in (26.15) exhibits it in its fundamental metric
role. It is the analogue of the metric tensor in
F,g,,lPx = g,x
or, using matrix notation,
lTgl = g,
for (f)g, which attributes opposite signs to time and space components, is also
the spacereflection matrix for vectors.
Another aspect of the infinitesimal transformation matrices (26.11, 12),
in relation to the real symmetrical matrices a k and
a0 = 1, (26.20)
is given by
LTaL = a!  8w X a!  6va0, LTaOL= a0  6v a, (26.21)
which are united in
LTapL = (6: + 8d',)av.
This is the response of a vector to homogeneous infinitesimal Lorentz trans
formations. The repetition of such transformations yields the finite transfor
mation law
L * ~ L= rVay,
which is also valid for the improper spacereflection transformation generated
by L = 7.. Note that the symmetry of the a' and the antisymmetry of r,, as
well as their reality, is maintained by the Lorentz transformations.
We now consider the coupling between sources associated with single
particle exchange, where the individual emission and absorption acts are repre
sented by (25.36) and (25.42), with
The spin 3 particle has been placed in a larger framework, as evidenced by the
existence of the three matrices pk that commute with a. Two of the four com
ponents must be rejected by interposing a spinindependent projection matrix
between the two B(p) factors that are associated with the individual acts. The
possibilities afforded by the three pr are really only two in number, depending
upon whether the p matrix used commutes or anticommutes with a. In the
Chap. 2
unit to the act of transposition, intercharrdng 5. and c', and X'. This is not
true of the first possibility, (26.271, since 1 and p2 k h a v e opgosibly under
transposikion, Accordingly, the projeckion factor f lp2 is spurious since only
one of the krms contributw ta the quadradic farm. The second kernel cfm
act M a unit under the general transposition:
[(mps  #(l/i)aL)~+(z' z)lT = (mp3  olh(l/i)a,)h+(z  z').
(243.30)
f t is antisymmetrical!
Onr? might try ta convert this kernel to a symmetrical structure, without
upgetting the spin description, by invoking partricles and etntiparticlt3.s. This
requires an additioml twwvslued source index, and permits insertion into
the kernel of the antisymmetritt~leharge m s t q.~ The resulting kernel iis gym
metrical but indefinite, sinee q is eonveded into q by a charge refieetion.
That is in fiat contradiction with the physical requirement on the vacuum per
sisknce probabiliky, which demands %]h& the ima@naq part of the quadratic
f o m be positive,
I,iWlz = ,zrrnW 1 (26.31)
26 Spin # particlss, FermiDirac stetisties 163
The conclusion is unavoidable that spin & presents ta totally new situation.
Only one coume is open. Insbad of trying to modify the symmetfy cfismckr
isties of the kernel to suit the algebraic properLies of the source, we must adapt
the algebraic prope&ies of the source to the antisymmetry of the kernel. The
comparison of the two equivalent versiom af (26.29) with the andisymmetq
property
&ts(ztIX ) = Ktlt(xp X') (24.32)
will cease to be a paradox and become sn identity if
+
We sre thus forced by the charaetedsties of spin to abmdoxl the ordinary
numerical, commutative sources of BoseEinstein stfttisties and introduce s
new kind of source and a new statistics. It will be verified shostfy that this is
FermiDirac statisties.
The symmetry aspects of this discussion have been faeilitakd by the use of
matrices with definik symmetv, the symnnetricd the antkytnmetricd p%.
In later developments, however, uniformity of algebraic properties and Lorentz
trtansfarmadion behavior are more significant. f t is alllgebraieal~llyawkward that
the anticommuting ar commute with ;'ro the representation of a Lorenta trans
formation on the 'a ws LTapL is not a similarity tramformation, and aga"
doe8 not have tensor transformation properties. To improve latter situa
tion one must replace LT with h'. That is accomplished by the relation
(26.14) which gives the new vector transformation form
and
We first write a = ( 1 / 2 i ) a X a as
1
crr = [at,ad = &PI, 711, (26 48)
and then note that
gok = iak = ~YOY~. (26.49)
These matrices are united in
@P* = ~+EY,'IYVI,
which transforms as an antisymmetrical tensor,
L,'aPYL = 1",lvhaKx.
The symmetry properties of the imaginary a,, are given by
which affirms that the akl are antisymmetrical and Hermitian, while the a o k
are symmetrical and skewHermitian.
The process of multiplying different r matrices together terminates with
This matrk i s real, and since
+ + +
for which the count is l f 4 6 4 1 = 16.. Clsmly reXat& but &mtinccf
is the organization by symmetq properties. As suwwted by the emstruction
we consider ror, where r refers to any of the sets exhibited in (26.63). Then,
= rT~O
= ya~;lrT~I, (26.6s)
sad the various equivabnces begween transposition md Bpwe reflection sfiow
that them mstriees have a definite symmetry. Indwd, the 16 m t ~ e e given
s by
106 sources Chap. 2
+
comprise the 4 $ 6 = 10 symmetrical matrices ror,, Y%, sad the 1 4 $ 1 = 6
antisymmetrical matrices r ', rOir,r, r O r ,. All the matrices are Hermitian.
The vacuum amplitude far an arbitrary spin +,four component spinsr
source 42) will be stated with the matriees p8 and a",in (2G.%), replmd by
the appropriate r matrices:
and therefore
in the dyadic f o m
+(l + = F v*u!.
where the relevant null trace of ra expresses its antisymmetry. A more general
remark follows on nsting that
where
which involves the anticommutativity of Y'Y with Y' and the eigenvector
significance of v, relative to 7
'. The same properties are used in verifying the
artlraonormzzlity of these vectars in the form
* 0Up.'
ZLpuY = V:@,? = &@.P.
This form shows the utility of defining the v. with respect to p ss s spin refer
ence direction. Then @ = p/lpl can be replseed by the eigenvalue a, which i~
now a helicity 1Plbel. On employing the relation (s6.83) these veebrs borne,
simply,
the consistency of the two definitions conveys the Hermitisn nature of 7'.
These are the precise definitions of single particle emission and absorption
sourem, nrhich have k e n built up from vari~usfachrs, Thus B(p) i s contain4
263 Spin 4 partiicfss, FermiDirrec statistics 109
in uOzr,,. In the rest frame of the parkicle, U,, reduces to v,, which is an eigen
veetor of TO and therefore of the space~flectionmatrix F, = g?', Thus the
singleparticle states have a definite, i f imaginary, parity. Incidentally we did
not prejudge this question by using the same matrix, in. defining r, and the
+
projection factar +(l ps). I t is now clear that the latter also performs a
parity selection, and that the refieetion matri.x must be defined accordingly.
The particle sources v,, and v;fl, as linear functions of the qr(z),are also
totally anticommutative,
O;rpa, qpfua' {%t
*
~ p ~ c =
* *
r ' {(7)1~#, ~ p ' r r r ) Q. (26. X W )
In particular,
(VP.)~ = 0, (v;@)% = 0 (2C5.101)
The commutafivity of even source functions is used to write
All this is quite the same as with, B. E. statistics. But; now the power series
contains just two terms: a,, = 0, 1, for, on reversing the multiplication order
of two elements, we see that
It is indeed possible to factor the coupling terms in the desired way, but strict
account must be kepG of the minus signs that are involved, This is facilitated
by the falEo6ng procedure, which we illustrate with two pa&icle sla$es, fabeled
a and b,
By always displacing sourees Lhrough an even number of factors, one avoids the
explicit appearance of minus signs, In this way we a r ~ v eaL a facbri~atiaa
where the emission sources are multiplied in some order, r e d from left to fight,
110 Sources Chap, 2
while the absorption sources appear in the same order, but read from right t o
left, It is given general expression by the following identification. of multi
particle states :
(in)IOY = (O+IO)~ n (i,.)%g
in which nT symbolizes the opposite multiplication sense from and any
standard sequence can be used for the denurnerably infinite number of particle
states. As in the B. E. discussion, the pa&icle occupation number interpreta
tion of n,, is supported by the response to source translation, 4%)
+ rt(z +
X),
which gives
where
shows the additive contributions of the various particles that are present.
The completeness requirement on the muttiparticfe states is stated alter
natively as
(26.109)
where
(01 (72.1)" ((C4IO>'? (26.110)
s a d by
with
We have been at pains to bvrite these more carefully than in the B. E. situation,
since we are now dealing with functions of antieornmuting numbers, No pre
~ a u t i a n sare needed for the vscuum amplitude, which is an even function, and
we present the two completeness statements as
where we have omitted the compensating factors of z" and i. The comparison
of the two forms suggests a rule of complex conjugation for F, D. Boureeg thaG
we shafl find is a, consistent one: complex conjugation also inverts the sense of
multiplication, as illustrated by
Then, the single statement of completeness is conveyed by
z 'real
Consequently, q ( z ) ~ ' ~ (is ) sinee YO is imaginary. This is another aspect
of the matching of the statistics to the spin. Sirlee the matrices (I/i)rF are real,
the only eomplex quantity in W is &.+(X  29,and
(26.118)
The relation
(26.1 X 9)
then gives
q(p)ro(m  r p ) ? ( p )
Up C )l(p)* y~ U ~ @ ~ ; U ~ O V ( ~ )
Q
= Re C s;,np.. (26.120)
P@
The injunction symbolized by Re is redundant, since
which makes essential use of the complex conjugation rule. This resull,
which acts upon stn dditiowl %WOvalued source index. Its introduction en
ables us to form e, eomplex unitary matrix by multiplying the real r. = g'/' by
Lhe i n r a a a q q and then taking the square root, in a n a l o e ~ %thehunif &pin
procedure, The explicit tr~nsfsmationis
e(ri/4)g~' (r i/41q7'
E @&v@ t (26. f 25)
and indeed
Whm this trantgfismaLion is performed in, the vacuum amplitude, one en
oounters the following rnatrk (note that a is symmetFioa1) :
and
The invariance of Che vacuum amplitude is vtsrified direekiy on uging Lhe mlstion
This is accomplished, horsever, a t the expense of replacing the real by tan
imaginary q, sinee that is the nature of rat* If we insist on s r e d T , as in the
transfarmation
s(Z> = Y 5 1 ( z ) , (26.142)
W turns into W, But this sign change can be compensated by reversing the
multiplication order of all sources, which is in sceord with the representation of
causal sequence by mu1tipEieativc?position.
The eflect, on the individual emission and absorption, sources, of the sub
stitution
?(P) +Y~v(P) (26.143)
where
= E, @ qt
and the source transformation that constitutes part of the FCP operation pro
duces the required reversal of multipliestion order,
They obey
f j j j j CMrj=I
i
27 More about spin g prr2icles. hlautrlnor 115
where n is the unit vector that supplies the angle variables of the spherical
harmonics. The fofiawing properties of a * n are involwd: i t commutes with
the total angular momentum veetor, but dters %heorbital angufar momentum.
by uniw; it does not change the ortkonormaIity of the sphangle funclionsit
has uniL square. All thia shows that the left snd righ6hand sides of (27.6)
are the same, to within phase constants that cannot depend upon m. Xt then
sufliees to set n parallel to the third axis and choose m == l$. The unly surviving
+
harmonic, Yto = (21 1/4?r)"~,selects v+, and (27.6) is confirmed.
The ~trvctureof the soufce coupling produced by singleparticle exchange
is (causal subscripts are omitted for simplicity)
where
wherein the Zljmqare constructed as in (27.5) from the eigenvectors v,,, and
the spherical harmonics refer to the angles of the unit coordinate vector. The
comparison of (27.13) and (27.15) with the lefthand member of (26.73)
supplies the identification
which exhibits space parity as a product of two factors, the intrinsic parity i,
and the variable orbital parity ( 1)'. The label 1 in $palimQ should be under
stood as (l)', the exact parity quantum number, for both orbital angular
momenta, 1 and 1, are present in this funetion. In the spin 3 situation the two
states with comrnon values of j, m can be distinl~;uishedby their different parity
values. For spinless particles, aeeording to (22.24), parity also appears as the
orbital parity (I)', multiplied into an intrinsic parity which is +l for s. scalar,
1. for a pseudoscalar source, Eere, p a ~ t yis superfluous as a label, being corn
ptetely determined by the angular momentum quantum number. With unit
spin particles, however, parity is insuffieienf to identify d l three at8tes of speci
fied total angular momentum. In addition to an intrinsic p a ~ t yfactor, 4for
a vector, +L far an axial vector, the state dese~bedin (23.39) h@ the ofiitaf
parity (l)j, representing I = j, while the two states of (23.41,42) have the
orbital parity (l)', whieh is common to 1 = j & 1. But for the massless
photon there are just two types of 8ta;t.e~ of a given aagufar momentum wanLurn
number j > 1. The photon state with source has parity (I)~, and
that created by has parity ( l)j. The two kinds of sources are conven
tionafly cdled magnetie and electric multipole moments, respeetivdy.
Before i n v e s t i g a t i ~the e k t of the TGI, operation on anwlar momentum
states, we examine the reality properties of J . p o r j m g ( z ) . Let us ant note that
Z$ma = (l)'+"miy~l 5 m pp (27.23)
which uses the spheric& hsrrnonie property
and the complex conjugation behavior of v,,, being Eq. (26.134) with'p = m.
On foming the complex eanjugate of the additional minus aigns that
are produ~edby the expficit appearance of z' may be compe988tc3:d through the
spacetime reflectTon zp + 9,
The canneetion which this relxttion es%abEghesbetween the two causal forms of
6+(z  a") is conveyed by the invari~neeprope&y
(&)h" ) i( 1)
5qf~=
jmP(~)*To~ ~p*a E Jm Q, (27,28)
and then
jmg B i( l ) E + j + m rlpar j m g (27.29)
This gives the detailed canrespondence bebeen singlepadicrle ernisgion and
abmrptian aets. The multipadicle correspondence is analogous, wi&hthe re
versal of multipfication order etppmring as an aspect of the TCP transfarmation,
A, spaeetime description of the multip~rticleexch~ngebet\veen sources is
produced by f he power series expansion:
where the index r represents any set of singleparticle labels, say pcrq. The
causal analysis of this vacuum amplitude is
from which the detailed effect of the probe source can be inferred. To describe
a weak probe one must interpret the product isr({n)10)?. If the singlepebrticle
state or mode r is initially occupied, n, = 1, the result is zero, ( v , ) 2 = 0. This
is the Exclusion Principle, forbidding the introduction of an additional particle
into an already occupied node. Otherwise,
where n,, counts the number of occupied modes that precede r in the standard
sequence, which is the number of source factors in ((n) 10)"hat iqt must be
moved through in order to place it in proper position. Similarly,
{ { n  lp)+l(n})q Si (I)n<riqF.
To construct the probability amplitude ((n)+[{n) )V, one must retain only
equal powers of v f , and q 2 , in the expansion of (2733),
exp [F(isrdrlo, + iv;,inzr)] + IJI[1 f i q ~ r i q o h & i ~ 2 ~ 1(27.38)
.
In contrast with the B. E. situation, the series terminates with the indicated
product. On referring to (27.35, 36) we see that
where the factor n, indicates the absence of the term n, = 0. The effective sub
stitution is, then,
The linear relation between ? ( X ) and emission and absorption sources for any
type of mode specification can be w i t t e n 88
(dz)~ ( z ) r ~ ~ . , ( z ) .(27.41
Thus,
$,.@(z) = (2mdw,) "2u,,,e'P", (27.42)
and Eq. (27.16) supplies another example. The related canslmction of the
propagation function, is that illustrated in (2X17, 18) :
We now ge.t;
((n)+1 in)>L
exp
with
The form of the second term assures the antisymmetry of TOG~,,+(~ S').
Explicit causal stmctures are
X [l + i q Z i q o r i s ~ l i s ~ r l(27.47)
,
which converts (27.33) into
(27.48)
A typical term of the product n, in (27.48) appears as
where the two sets of modes labled a and e are disjunct, sinee the individual
mode facton are linear in ql1 and q f . If B nonvanishing t e r n is to result in
27 More about spin 3. particlsrr, Neutrinos l21
th& sre not oecupied finally, while the e(mitted) modes are those oeeupietd
find1y,
(27.52)
whieh i~ the generdizlation of (27.37).
In order to test $ha?eompledenctss of the multiparticEr? state8 in this general
context, we multiply (27.52) on the left by its complex conjugate and prrtst;nl
the ~ m l int a farm that reinstates (In) m an arbitrary initial 8taLe:
as antieipatd.
The reduetion of unitarity to causality for spin i$ particles imitates the pat
tern alresdy established with spinless particles. We follow the development of
the syskm. from the initial V ~ ~ U Ustate,
H ~ under the influence of the source
qls)(~),and then trace it back to tlne initial strtte, using the source g(,,(z), The
stru~tureof the propagation function 6+(z  z') governs %hisevolution and
we get, as the analogue of (22.83),
and
(27 64)
The various functions are dso eanneeted by the identity
According to the causal analysis
As in the spin O discussion, tfle general unitsrirty proof uses the sources q f f ) ta
generate arbitrary terminal st&s. The complotc3 removd of reference to a
subsequently ~letingG O U T C ~~ ( 2requires
) the additional relations
which lacks only the matrices g,, = CF.,. Since TO and ror, are antisym
metrical and r0up symmetricd, the antisymmetrical matrix q eennot multiply
them. But p must be used to reverse the antisymmetry of Y @ Y ' ~ Y ~ . This struc
ture shauld fit into the mode function pattern detailed in (27.633, M) since the
latter refern only to the combination of individual emission and absorption wcta
An essential aspect ia the positiveness property
where! ~ ( 2 is
) an arbitrary complexvalued numerieaf funetion. X t a implieation
124 Sources Chap. 2
The three matrices ipT5, Y', ror5anticommute and are of unit square, from
which we infer the numerical requirements
ma i [ ( m a ~ ) m
~: + + m:]'" 2 0. (27.73)
In addition to the conclusion that a is positive, we note that the zero value must
be attained if a projection matrix is to be produced, and accordingly
m2a2(1  h2) = m; + m:. (27.74)
Throughout the open interval h2 < 1 , it is permissible to normaliee a by
a2(1  X') = 1,
with the consequence
ml2 + m: = m2.
This is represented as
a = cosh 8, QX = sinh 8; ml = m cos ( p , m2 = m sin cp. (27.77)
It is then easily seen that
y OG+(,
,t) = ,c 1/~
l/ 2 ) ~ ? 5 ~ )( @ ~ Q T s
The first version ixrdicrttes that we have regained (26.2q, with the objection
to the antisymmetry of p2 =. iyti removed by the pmsence of the additional
antisymmetrical matrix Xq. The second version is related ta the standard form
of raG+ by symmetrical matrix factors, which could be transferred to the
sources. These are sinwlar projection matrices, however, and the new sources
will be subject to the restrictive condition
neutrino :
l + b. lept. = 0.
We now put forward the natural hypothesis that one role of Ieptonic charge is
to distinguish, and label the two leptons with a common electric charge q:
Ech. tept. = TB* (27.87)
Its consequence is the empirical equivalence between neutrino helicity and the
accompanying electric charge,
where
~ ~ = 6 r~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~
and
*
Up1 = Upl.
These eigenvectors also obey
and those for the second type are obtained by the reflection
and its specifie identification is confirmed by evaluating the trace over the six
dimensional space. The resulting form of the source eouplimg in the rest frame is
where
rl:*(1 + r0)(6k& W *@k@1)'11 = q:B(1 + 7')~kt (28.3)
+
The first rearrangement restates the commutativity of 1 ra with e r ; the
second invoke8 the prope&ie~of and the Iwt uses %heprewnee of the factor
+
m I. ? p to substitute m for rp. An sltc?mat;ive form replaces % (I/m)p,
with (ilm)$hpk. The implied expression for the vacuum amplitude
in which we bsve returned to the vemion given in (2g.?), and u& $he dya&c
construction for gtr,(p). The introduction of the dyadic spinor realization for
(m  r p ) / 2 m gives the form
which are standard combinations of states for unit and anwiar momentum,
Their orthonormality propdies arc given by
One ewn replace evevwhere by jmt the two krms of the dyadie that refer
to helicity k X :
SlnGe
PP.Y(P)= a, m 0. (28.26)
We also use
rO(rp)= 2p0&(1  irsa p/Ip
= 2~"
*
@~,~eup,t, (28.27)
U'=&
where
. @ " ) . U ~ ~ P = (a6E Q ' ) u ~ ~ ~ (28.28)
and the algebraic ps~perties
in which +(l. + XB) ~eleCLsonly the staks of helicity &#. The two m d e fun*
tionis are
= ei+l@~k, (28.3 I)
and the corresponding sources are given by
As in the spin fj n e u t ~ n odisewsion, one can introduce an. rtdditioml decorn
position in which helieity is coupled to charge in a unique way.
Preparatory to generafi~ingthis approach to all parliclw of spin s n f 9, =I..
Although it is evident that the i j k , ...kR are traceless, this property can be re
garded as a consequence of
@klBkl..k, =z 0, (28.38)
according to
0 2= @kflk,qk,kzkg*.k, == qkkks..sk,. (28.39)
I<eeping in mind the restriction to tuocomponent spinors, we see that the
count of independent components is
+
consistent with the description of spin s == n ij. The numerical ftletor in
(28.37) ean be derived by noting that the latter should be an identity if qr,..,~~
is replaced by ql, ...l . I n that circumstance the projection tensor reduces to
+
the symmetrized unit matrix appropriate to rz 1 indices. There are two
classes of terms; those that select p .= q, which are R! in number, and those
with p = L j , q = ki, being the remaining %(R!) terms. The firs6 set is mufti
plied by ( @ p ) 2 = 3, and the second set by 2, since
as stated in (28.37). Alternativeiy, one ean verify that the trace of the pro
jection matrix that is defined on the spaee of n threeeamponent vector8 and
twocomponent spinors h a the required value of 2(n +) 1 : + +
since the trace of the projection matrix that refers to 7t + I thmevector indices
+ +
equals 2(n 1) I.
132 Sour~aa Chap. 2
+
A particle of spin s = n $ can be describd by the symmtricd tensor
spinor source $ 1 . " ' e ( 2 ) . The fourdimensional momentum space version of W i.s
(28.45)
where
The other heliaity functions are produced nnos"cimp1y fmm this one, by rota
tion, ss effectively rewliad in. the algebraic construction
where $,&(E) is defined a8 in (25.87) but with n replaced by s, The rwults for
= 8 that are &vent irr (28.15) are immdiakly repmduced in this w8y. The
i;:
243 Particles of integer + f spin 133
sourees for the helicity labeled stzt;hs of thew F. I). psdieres arts identified as
one verifiw Ghat (28.22) is reproduced, while becoming aware of the egtrivalmt
form
The coupling hrnn in 2"W for a causal arrangment is obtained from (28.52) as
The dyadie eonstruetion (25. f f 7), combined with (25.1.21), conveds the
tensormatrix of (28.55) into (the tensor indices are raised, for clarity)
The f m b r 4(1 f a') locks the spin 4 hdicity to the olfiw, and we reco@;nige
the genemEsaLion oE (s8.31) for s = n 4 : +
vy..v,
= epkn (28.59)
with the w m c b t d wmce definitions
r/z ; P ~ * . . P * ,
$p& ( 2 ~ 'h p ) %p& ~rl...r,(~)$
h = As:
The h m e l of this quadratic lorm ha9 a definite wsynrrrnetq under matrix tr%ns
position combined with the substitution p"" + fl,
Aecorifingly, if the dgebraic propertim of the source are to mahh the symmetv
properlim of the kernel, we must have
n even, s == integer: [S(x), S(&))]= 0, B. E. stsdistics,
(29.10)
n odd, s = integer 3 9: (S(%),&(X')) == 0, F. S). &&%&ties,
which is the general stakemen%of Lhe connection betwrmn spin and ~tstistics.
This proof will be eompjete, however, only when we h w e shmn that any a t
tempL to revem thme natural connections does violence to Lhe completeness of
the multiparticle stabs,
Let a8 eon~iderthe causal srrangement
B(x) = Sl(2) 4 82(~),
which implim
(o+~o)~= (O+IO)'Z exp d w , i ~(p~)' [?'(m  7p)IaiS2(p)
a
(29.12)
Ollr usirtg (26.93) far each spinor index, we have
Eq.(29.12) becomes
which uses the fact that even functions of the sources are commutative for
either statistics. The causal analysis
= C @+l
(~+lo)~
l* 1
ns'( n)l~)~' (29.21)
leads to the identifications
29 Unification of all spf ns and statisgitiicra 137
Become, respectively,
1, (29.26)
and
according to the Hermitian nature of each ro(n rp) matrix. This reality
propefiy gve:s
~rhere,as a. statement about integrals,
Turning to the vacuum amplitude itwlf, we obseme thak the realiky property
(29.30) persists 1viL1.1 the Hermitian matrix q inserkd, and that matrix t3sur
vivtls in (29"33)to give
The clem contradiction .cvi%h(29.36) completes the unified proof of the can
nection between spin. and statistics.
29 Unification of all spins and statistim *r39
combined with reversing the multiplication order of all sources, The egect of
the substitution on W comes down to the minus sign induced on eseh r@ by
the r, transformation, and thus W is multiplied by ( 1)". The reversd in the
sense of multiplication introduces a plus or minus sim, in accordance with the
st~tistics. Through the connection between spin and statistics, W, (and the
vBeuurn amplibde), is left invariant; under the compie%eTCP operation.
To study the eEect of TCP on individual emis~ion~ n absorption
d sources)
we first notice the generalization of the spin complex conjugatioa property
(26.92), which depends ugan the multiplicative eornpasifion of the u,~,
where
= n, x.
We have been discussing particle rcspectg in which unification is achieved,
the specific nature of the system being implicit in the pa&iculsr value of n,
the number of multhginor indices. But when we turn to the Euelidean pos
tulate in the context of multispinor sources, %hefundamental diBerence betwen
+
the sttztistics, or between, integer and integer 4 spin, beeome~explicil. The
The r@m&trices, which mirror the indefinite Minkowski metric, must be re
moved in the tran~form&ionto the Euelidean description. This is ~.ecom
ptished, for n even, by the symmetrical matrh
snd now
which distinguish integer from integer + 4 spin, and the generally valid
The uniform selection of p' = f l in the rest frame gives the definite parity
(f)P, which is real for integer spin. With n = 2, the alternatives of anti
symmetrical and symmetrical spinors give the spinparity properties 0, I" and
0+, l+,corresponding to the sign option in (29.57). Otherwise, with the gen
eral use of symmetrical spinors, integer spin particles fall into the two sequences
of parity (&)(l)'.
No rest frame is available for massless particles. In this circumstance, the
kernel of (29.12), referring to causal conditions, becomes
Now it is the values of the individual helieity matrices U p/lpf and the assso
ciated Yg matrices that specify a particle state. For a systematic classification of
almost all helicities, using symmetrical spinor sources, it suffices to identify the
value of every ir6 matrix and thereby of the individual helieity matrices. This
is sccomplished by inserting the following symmetrical real projection matrix:
Then we have
142 Sources Chap, 2
Although this discussion applies to n both even and odd, the necessary
+
existence of a charge propedy in the latter situation, of h an integer 9,in
vites ra further classification in which the helieity is tied to the charge value,
This is produced by replacing (29.61) with the symmetrical real projection
matrix (the common =t sign gives two alfernatives)
For a given value of q the trace of the complete projection matrix now equals
4"(X f21Z)(X/2") = 1. Thew tare only two states, labeXed by q = & l , and the
helieity is
== ( ~ ) 4 $ @ , (29, M)
where the sign option refers to the alternatives of (29.65). Pn each situaion
This treatment is k3ss general than the earlier neutrino discussion for R = 1,
sine@fph%t did not require the msumption. of zero masg.
We &all close this section by examining the connection h t w w n the mufti
spinor description and the tensor treatment of integer spin particles, in the sim
plest situation of a second rank spinor Silt. It is convenient to regard the
l a t k r as matrix, and to correspondingly rewrite the structure of W as
29 143
Unificaticn of crlt spins and M a t i ~ t f ~ ~
with
K($) = 2"'(mS2(z) + a,P(x)), (29.78)
Chap. 2
and
The K and J stmetures are the anticipated onm for spin O and spin X.
There sre additional terms, however, ~vhiehmodify the vacuum smpfitude by
the typicat. factor (S stands for SE,8 2 , S,, S,,)
This is an equivalent description. The additional phase fetctor daes not change
the vtacwm persisknee probability nor does it contribute to the coupling be
tween sources in a causal arrangement. And it has no implication for the ob
sem&blewpeets of the energy asociakd wikh a quwistatic source distribution,
for they refer to the effect of relative displacement of two disjoint parts.
Physical eonsideratiom that arc? sensitive to such souree overlap terms can ap
pear only in the fudlter development and specialisation, of the general souree
f ormlzlism,
Far m == 0,unit helicity parlieles should be selmted by inserting the pro
jection matrix Its aetion upon the secondrank spinor is given by the
matrix trans~riplion
The two terms in the symmetrical spinor of (29.70) commute and anticorn
mub, respeetivefy, with Y ~ .Only the XatLer is retained by the projection nxat~x,
which eEectively sets &(p) egual to zero. As we recognize from (2978), Lhe
divmgence of the veebr source JP(%)then vanishes identically and the photon
deseription is regained, It would not have suffi~edto merely let m + O in
(29.78), since it is dsa necessary that (I/m)dJF+ O, We have remarked that
$he antisymmetricat spinor should be supplid andogously with a rSprojection
faetor that digem from (29.80) in the relative sign of the two Lerms. This
selects terns in S, that commute with rS, which is uniquely the axial vector
contribution of (29.70). Nsw, ho~\rever,it is sufficient .t;a set m = 0 in the
eEe~tivesoume (29.76). It seems to be a specific property of the secondrank
spinor repremtaticm that the source of massless spin 0 pa&ides acquires the
special form of the divergence of a vector.
FIELDS
where
+
since p 2 mZ = 0 in these integrals, while the discontinuity of the time de
rivative across x0 = zO',
Unlike the Minkowski situation, the two fundamental solutions of the Eudidean
differential equation are sharply distinguished by their asymptotic behavior:
e*"R. Thus the requirement of boundedness, for X # X', uniquely selects one
solution, the one that is produced automaticaIly by the Fourier integral solu
tion of (3111],
and A+(x  z') i s recovered by the previously explored procedures. The al
ternative methods of imposing boundary conditions can also be applied directly
31 The field concept. Spin 0 particles 147
where the minus sign of the second term recalls the opposite sense of time de
velopment that is involved. The two fields encountered here are
(31.19)
Let us examine these fields for the particular situation in which
K()(x) = K(+&) = K ( 4 . (31.20)
Then
we see that
+()(X> = #(+)(X)= +mt.(x) (31.25)
where
0mt.(4= / ( d x ' ) ~ret .(X x')K(~) (31.26)
548 Fields Chap, J
where
one gets
which m ~ k e expliciG
s the final boundary condition.
Still other kinds af fields md Green" functions appar on replacing the
vacuum state with a general multiparticle state. Rather than USE? any specific
one, we consider a pararnetriaed mixture, as in
C
tn!
(m+l @
 ) K ~Ia ( 1 = exp[iW@(K)l, (31 36)
where
and 19, is an arbitrary timelike vector with > O* OR reviewing the discussion
of ({B)+l{n) J K , pa&icuI~rlyEq. (22.46), we recognize that this probabgity
amplitude is linear in eaeh occupation number n,, which is merely =$ace$ by
an average value in (3136), namely :
(3139)
with
A6(2  g') = 6+(1: X') f doP (n8 )8[e'p'z"t' + G'"~ "'1. (31 ,401
where
are relabd by
ah'(~  X@) = AB(41(Ze 2). (31 .del
On noting that
(%,)a + 1 = gP(np)sp (3 1.47)
we can as=& the formal connections
z 2') = ~I;)(z
A ~ ' (  2'  ip), ab)(~ g') = a;+'(%  2' + ia),
(31 +48)
and khese are d l combined in
namely
If one wishes to verify that the periodicity condition. does produce the
de~iredsolution of fhe Green" function diflferential equation, it is convenient ta
adopt the rest frame of the timelike vector X@,with X' = T,and satisfy the
periodicity requirement in z0by using Fourier series while retaining the Fourier
intepal. treatment of the spatial coordinates. That gives the Green" funetion
repreentation

+
EI ~ ) i ; p o ~ @(X
1/ 2 ) i p 0 T ipOlrOso' i
e
IP I ~ ~ O T
(31 58)
and the substitution inverse to (31.50) in the rest frame,
followed by removal of the reference to the rest frame, does indeed produes
Aa(z  3'). The same results are obtained directly from the digerential equrt
tion for +(z) by imposing the periodicity boundary condition
we must dso cornider the function that replaces d,1,j (2  3') :
= z0 > sop:
ihk'(X  g'),
Am@(% 2" (31.62)
zo < 2" : ia, ( X  %'C').
f +f
The designation th& we have given it exploits the following form& property
of the averaged oecupw;tion numbers,
@,)a == ((%>a C I>,
and thus
(41
L'%@ (z  XI) = rhk)(z  zt), *'"
e (x  57 = A# (41( X  X/).
(32.64)
The required generalization of (8 I. 17) is
Chap. 3
according eta (31.49). Removing the rmt~ation.(3 l,GB), the ssme reason8
o p r s k to produce
continuity between the tm funetions is required after the sourcm have clt3wsed
operalion. Psior to the aotion of any source, the two fidds are connected by
(o+lo)" = exp[iW(K)],
(31 35)
( ~ z ) ( ~ L . ~ ) K * ( + ) A, ( xx')K(zF),
They are
One must not be misled by the notatiori and conclude that these fields stre in
complex conjugate relation. That is s correct rts%rtiort about the differential
equations they obey,
but t;hese equations are to be solved with the same boundary coxrditioclsth&
of ouLgoing waves in time, by ~vhichiu meant positive frequencies in. the futufe
and negative frequencies in the past of the source,
Let us examine the structure of these fields in the two mympbtic time
regions. If the fields are evaluated at a time after the sources have ceased
operation, that causal circumstance is expressed by replacing P+(z  z') witfi
h (  X ' Thus (z > K suggests the causal arrangement):
and
z > K:
X < K: K *(X')
= (dup)"2e'Pzi~~+
P
IM Eiefdd Chap, 3
The two eausal evaluation8 of the fields are assseisted with particle emimian and
absorption processes, respectively. They assign the field (h,) 'j'e'~' to an in
dividual emission act and the field (dw,)v2e'p' to an individual absorption act.
As in. the interpretation of complex sources these field8 produce definite charge
chsngw. Depending upon the causal situation, +(z) de~cribesenrrit;td positively
charged padieles or absorbed negatively chaed padicles, while +*(g) rcpre~enh
emitilt;ed negatively charged patticleg or absorbed positively charged part;icle~.
The time cycle vacuum amplitude is
) ( d z ' ) ~ t(z)bL+'
, (z  zf)K,+,(X')
(3 11 '84)
and
If is seen that the field struedure already given in Eq. (31.19) is duplicated
here, and the earlier discussion can be applied, enlarged by the substitutions
K + K", cf, + $*. In particular, when
where the d m retarded fields are complex conjugates since A,,t;.(x  X') is a
real function. One implieation of this property is that any small deviation af
31 The f isld eoneapt. Spin O particles 186
The replacement of' the vacuum state with a general rnuZdigarticIe s t a k can
be parametrizcd, as in (3136), with tbc tveight funetion
Nob that if we wished to write the last term in the aldernative way that uses
the h'*' function, it is necessary to change a into a,according to Eq. (31.97).
The fields defined in the manner of (31.83) are now given by
32 Tha field concept. Spin 4 particles 1S7
and
where
G+(z  z') = (m  ? @ ( I / ~ ) ~ ~ ) A + (
Z z
'). (32.2)
Let us obeme innmdiately that t h e algebraic prope~iesof the Y" matrices imply :
+ n)C+(z  2')
(r@(~/i)a, = (a2 + m2)a+(z  2') = a($  g'). (32.3)
This identifies G+(% x') arj. a Green" function of the D i m mat^ diffaential
operator. Aoeording to the stmcture af &+(X  z ' ) ~it iei the one that obeys out
going wave time b o u n d ~eondi$ions.
~ The field definition fo be used here is
where has s different scale in the trvo expressions. Alternatively, the Green's
function is constructed from solutions of the homogeneous Dirac equation,
z0 > xO': iC'+'(z  z'),
G+@  z f ) = z0 < zO': iG''(z  z'),
= C
P@@
(X)$,@, W )*TO,
G''(~  g') =
= C +,.s(z) '+p.p(z')rO,
PSQ
and [Eq. (27.42)]
+p@4(2)= (2mdo,)'izzl,,,e'ps. (32.1 l)
A charge label appean since this is a general attribute of spin particles. The
inhomogeneous term of the differential equation (32.3) is equivalent to the
time diseontirtui$y
The evduatian of the fields in esussf situationsafter the source has ceased
functioning, or prior ta itts introductionis given by
The field that follows the action s E s source describes the previously emitted
partielea, and associtstes the tvsve function rt,,,(z) vvith an individual emission
act; the field that preeedes the action of a source describes subsequently absorbed
ptthieles and associates the tvave function \t,,(z)* with an individual ab
sorption aet.
It will be noticed that positive and negatively charged particles have been
given a uniform treatment, That, is becaum we used reat sources, and assimed
the task of selecting la specific charge t a the multicompsnc?xrQIup,, or jjpcrq(s).
This is natumjt, since, u n l i h the spin 0 situation, spin already demzzxzds the
presence of the faurcomponent U,,. One ean, however, also follow the pmocedure
of praelecting the charge by using complex sources, From the pair of four
component real. sources ) ) ( X ) ) ?<2) (X), \v"i"~anst~tct
2312 I ( 1 2 +
1 ( ~*) = 2112 ( 1 ( 3 ) ( 2 ) i9~2)(2))
(32.17)
Then the vacuum amplitude is represented by
+(z)a,T = a,$(z),
and the obmwation that
To confom ~ t the
h new notation, we mow ~ t c ;
and
apip.
= %;@ro.
We also fib
m~8$
which restabs the property (32.7). The fields in the two causal situottions are
obtained W
= E +P@(%)r0iv@@,
Pip.
with
32 The field concept, Spin f particles 181
and
= 22
P@
+Pu(s)iT;u+,
where
P , S:, =
The specifications of the particle sources follow from the earlier discussion by
identifying $(z) and $(X)?' with the projections of the eightcomponent field
o n h the positive and negative charge space, respectively, To use the fields
#(X:) and $(x) is surely the most familisr and the most pptrlar waty of appfyhg
the Dirac equation. Neverthdess, we regard the asymmetry of the forms
(32.30,32), in contrast with (32;. 14), as justifying, in general, the employment
of the msl sources and the multiieomponent fields thab are defined in charge and
spin space, rather than the pairs of complex sources and their sssoeiated fields.
The time, cycle vacuurn amplitude
f n the ~peehlsi$uation
~f(j(z)"' 8 [ + ) ( ~ X
) 9f~) (3245)
one evidently h=
J.c1(2) z=z 1L(+j(x) =.;. J/rct.(z>, (32,46)
with
(32.47")
whiel.1 vanishes before the sauree earnrss into action, The form of W far smdX
deviations from the situation (32.45) is
(&~tt.,(.)  a~,,(z)) u"$m,.(z) (32.49)
When the multiparticle mixture given in (31.91)is applied to w F, D.
stem, where n,, = 0, 1, the a v e r w d occupation numbers are
(32.51)
and tlsis Green" function. appears in
( d r )(dx')q (X)?'G.& (X  z') q(zf) (32,521
to determine
C ((4+I )'pa&( ( R ) ) = exp[ilva8(s)l. (32.53)
Far sirnplicitJI, no parameter hsls bwn introduced to distinguish tfie w i o u s spin
stales, The funetions defined by
are, explicitly,
and
+ (1 ~ ~ p q ~ a ~ ) *$psq(zf )l?',
+ p ~ g ~ ~ )
,
(J"""
@(S  2') =  G:~)(Z  27, G%'
 2') = GoB(41
(X  X'),
@(X
(32. (30)
and they follow from the aver&geoccupation number property
(npp)a .B 1  (@pq)a~ (32.61)
Spin 1. According to Eq. (23.4), unit spin particles of mass m s" 0 am de
seribed. by
(dzf)A,($  ~')aa'(z~).
(33.3)
The divergence of the vector field is
and this defived scslar field vanishes outside $he region oecupied by the murce.
The differential equation that is infemed from (33,3),
33 Some other spin values 166
on using the relation (33.4). Another version of this differential field equation is
+
a,G'"'(x) m2@(x) = J"(X), (33.7)
where
G,v(x) =  G ~ ~ ( x=) a , 4 , ( ~ ) a,+,(x). (33.S)
The differential equations that relate the vector field to its source conversely
determine the field when appropriate boundary conditions are added. The
divergence of the vector equation regains the relation (33.4), and thereby the
form (33.5). The soiution of the latter with the outgoing wave boundary condi
tion is just our starting point of Eq. (33.3). In this and other examples of B. E.
systems, different boundary conditions can also be used, in straightfonvard
generalization of the spin 0 discussion.
Spin 2. Massive particles of spin 2 are described by [Eq. (24.20)]
+ (2/m2)asTp'(x)a+(x xf)aX'T,x(xf)
+ ( l / m 4 ) a f i a , T ~ v ( x ) ~+ (x')a:a'x~"~(x~)
x
 5(T(x)  ( l / m 2 ) a , a , T v ( ~ ) )
x A + ( ~   x ~ ) ( ~ ( x ~ )  ( l / m ~ ) a : a ~ ~ ~ ~ ( x(33.9)
'))],
in which
T ( x ) = g,,Tpv(x). (33.10)
The symmetrical tensor field that is introduced through
 ( l / m 2 ) a ./ ( d z r ) ~ + ( 
z xt)aA'~,~(x')
+ (l/m4)a,av/(dxr)a+(x  ~ ~ ) a : a : ~ ~ ~ ( d )
 *(g,,.  (1/m2)a,,av)/(d~')A+(z
 x t ) ( ~ ( . r r) ( ~ / m ~ ) a # i ~ . ~ ( ( z ' ) .
(33.12)
The divergence of this tensor field is the vector
which vanishes in sourcefree regions. That is also true of the scalar field
and of the combination
where
S,W(P) = g,. + (llm2)P,Pv.
Some properties of this tensor are:
its trace,
( p 2 f m2)+(p)  P%'+~A(P)=   ~ S ~ ~ ( P ) T " ( P ) , (33.32)
and the additional combination
ssinee any additional term containing p&, p,, or p, ss Erzctors will not eontribuk
in (3338), oiving to the souree restriction (33.37). Hence, the genwal form of
the field is
in rvhich the cy~licallyrelated sets of terms are required by the total symmetry
of the knsor +h,,. The new symmetrical tensor h,+)is defermind by the
murce restriction. In order to urn the latkr, we first note thzzit
33 Some other @pinvalues 16s
Multiplication of Eq. (33.39) with p9then introduces just the combination that
is evltluaLed tts *(#h  p&+), and we get
The construction of +(p) given in (33.45) is derived directly from this equation
by multiplication with phpppv. It might seem that we have failed to meet the
objective of providing secondorder differential field equations. Three dePiva
Livers act upon Q, and the scalar field obeys a fourthorder diEerenti%lequa;t;ian.
But notice that the field equs.tion involves only this combination of fields:
where dots represent the terms that are genemted by cyclic permutation from
the gven ones. The following is an algebraic consequence of this equation,
it is consistent with the vanishing divergence of the source, but doe8 not imply it.
Xow let us consider a mwsive particle of spin 3, fir& using maltere$ the
description given by Eq. (25.95) :
I70 Fiaids Chap. 3
nX,.,kt,p.t = g h h ~ j l p , ~ g v +
v ~ + [ g ~ , g ~ . ~ g r ~gppyhhgg,ppfi
,~ + ~ ~ h ~ ~ , ~(33.52)
g ~ ~ h ~ l
in whielt the necessary symmetriaation in h f , p', v' h= xlsL been made explieid.
Some propertim aE this tensor are
4 Phhfigpfrt 4
PhP,'
7 8 . 8 ~ f
Quite? apart. from the explicit appearance of numerous derivatives acting on the
source, the eoegeient of Sx does not have the value given. in. Eq, (33.46). Thak
is rectified, however, by considering
for then
21r. p2 + ?a2 l
4hld.Y
cont. P~PRP, + gpvpr p8." 2;i;;li ~ r y ~ h x
(33.66)
and its contribution to the field equation is
Chap. 3
where
The addition of these terms to the righGhand side of Eq, (33.62) removes the
third derjivativea of 2, and replacm them by fimt derivatives of @. And %her@
is an additional contribution in (33,M), which can be d d e d Lo the lefbhaxld
side as
l
eont ,
=f  P ~ ) P ~ S ~ . (33.69)
2% 2 P 2z+ZOmflp2(m2
P'$@
1
= 2 ; i b  Yp)p, + *YP(~'YYf p.)lrlV
33 Some ather spin values 173
and
pp,Ip.  S(mr. +
1
(rp 4 m)& = 4 &r, qv + 3 PP)~?',
(33.79)
from which we immediately obtain
Like the field equation, for spin +,this is (the momenlum space e q ~ v a l e nof)
l a
firr~torderdigerentiaf,eqtr%%ion ~viththe source appearing m the inhomogeneous
hrm. The solution of the equation under outgoing wave boundaq conditions i~
the field given by (33.7'3). As is indicsted by the m .sl O limit of (3376}, the
necessafy source resl.riction for massless particles,
With the examples of spins 2,3, and # b&m us we can recognize the possi
biliky of simple dgt3braic redefinilions of the seurces Lhat preseme the general
stmcturtt, of the field equations, but introduce or modify contaet brms in Lhe
expression for W , Thus, let
which has the inverse
On introducing this redefinition into the expression for W ( T ) ,say Eq. (33.241,
the additional g,. terms supply only contact contributions. The explicit state
men&is
where W(2")has the same funetiond form as W(T). The implied field trans
formation inferred from
Since field and souree are frtznsformed linearly, and Ioeally in spacetime, the
daerenlisl field equation mainfains its general farm, buL with changed caeE
eierrts. This is illu~krakdfor a = 4, where
urhich maintains the general structure of the fidd equations but & a n p the
eontael germs, cannot be aged, to Iremove the latbr, As we ohmwed, second
~rderdiffewntial equations lacking in source derivstive~are not obtained if
canttbet term8 are o ~ t ; k d ,
33 Some other spin values 176
ean be written as
or
+L = $g + av,rpr(..
where
The fimt gives the original field equation, and the second produces
 f~"(~)~'~~(rp)r~4;~9(~)
 f s (   ~ ) ~ ~ (  ~ p ) s ( p )(33.107)
l,
where
?(P) a Q ~ W V ~ ~ ( P ) (33. XQS)
and
12,1.l"""(~)
== 0. (%3. 109)
The field defind by
(dp) (33 * 110)
&g"'( P)$&P(P)
is not unique, 8.lnce $he source is restricted by (33, tW), ftAs general form is
is eonskbnt with the souree restriction, but dws not imply it.
By f o l l a ~ n gthe ins6ruetions given in SecCion 28, we a ~ v ade the f o l l o ~ n g
scrum dwripdion for a,masgive. padiele of q i n #:
Le%us also @ t a bhere the dditiorrd contact brms that are req&ed Lo bfing
the field equations into firstorder fsrm without source derivatives. They are
derived from
The appropriate contact term has already been inlrodueed, and the soume
differ8 in normaXiz;%ianfrom that used in (29.8), as indieat4 generally by
q(p) = (2m) 2'""S(p). (34.2)
The field definition is
wnd
which puts into evid~neethe contact term and rrormli~ationthat are needed
do attain (34.8).
The effectiveness of such considerations becomes clearer on turning t a the
nnulti~pharof rank 3, where the choice h p = Yzp = Yap leads to the wad=
tion of
Multispinor fields 179
(m  TIP)(^  72p)(m 7 3 ~+
p2 + m2  ie ) 3m
There are only two general alternatives open to the ?,p. Either they are all
equal, or one of them has a sign opposite to the other two. These situations are
characterized by
it can be verified directly. Note that the field statement of Eq. (34.16)can also
be presented as the unrestricted equation
where the latter illuslrahs the set of three equation8 th& are relatd by eyelic
permu% a%ion.
It is aIso inbre~tingto eliminate the three auxiliary fidda and pm~entthe
field equation in the form
or, slbm&tively,
The Iakter may be earnpared with the secondoder di8erent;hl eqamiLio.on for
unit spin :
[ P ~ + , ~    { P ~ + ~ ~ c Y ~ P ) ~ I (ImJ . =+C.,,, ( ~ ~
and for spin i:
(pZ+. m2)$ = (m  7p)v.
The dk~usaionof the fou&hrank multispinor begns wi& the hi,lg&r&ie
~bhrn@rz_t
But now there is ambiguity in giving (Yl p ) 2 s more general inkrpretation; shall
it be p2, or Q ~ . p ~ @ pIn? fsct, we shall use s ~pecificlinear combination
of the two, 80 ~hogenthat p W e mof moment&in 3/ are held h the minimume
The actual expression is
in whieh $he last sunnmafiion is extended over $istinet pairs, ar < 6,"a p',
a tit: art6 @ p', with ~ 1 repetilious
0 counting. This is equivalenf to s faurt;hh
order diR6rendial equaf ion,
Turning ts fifthrank multispinors, we first note that
Ambigfuitieshave been msolved in stating the field as
in which the stmnmations m%rked X' are extendd over all index values other
.than a and 8.
The auxiliary fields
and, for example,
while
C'
a'<B6
+(Y~'P = 0,
Y@'~)$[aflj[a~@~l
(3455)
which imply
The next in the sequence, ~vhicfnis as far s s it shall be developed here, are
where the k r m s left unwritten are those referring to three index pairs, This set
has the property that
That is, beginning with the quadr&ic source expression for W, ~vherer is the
approprirzk repregentation of the metric, fields X are defined through the con
sideration of an in6n;itmimal test souree, The noalacal spacelime relation
between field and source that is conveyed by G is then converted into a local
differential one, which is symbolized by the operator F. Alternative expressions
for W are
and
But 6W is ~ ~ S Y and
X , the additional term should vanish. Indeed it does, since
I"x = S. This means that, consider& as rz funetions1 of X for pwscribd S, the
expression (35.7) has vanishing first variations or is stationary at the unique
field eonfigumtion selected by the field equations, in conjunction. with Boundary.
conditions, The quantity W is thereby invested with the adtributes of action,
producing the field equations through the principle of stationary action, We
hall no\%v
iillustrate these general remarh in the context of specific spin values.
Spin 6. The field equation is
There is a more symmetrical form that contains only first derjvatives of the
field. No addit;ional surface integral term is assigned to the partial inkgration.
This can best be appreciated with the aid of the assoeiakd Euelidertn description
where fields decrease exponentially at large distances from the source, sinee that
is the characteristic of AE(x  X", m 7C O. Even for massless pa&ieles the
(z  behavior is sufficient to suppress infinitely remote surface integral
eorttributions. Accordingly, rre ~vrite
The elirninalion of the vector field 4, gives the secondorder dieerential equa%ion
(8' + ?n2)&(z)= K ( r )  a,Kp(z), (35.1 4)
wyhich exhibits the same kind of efieetive sealrtr source that Etas already been
encountered in. Eq. (2976) Tbe corresponding action expression, is
f f the first equation of (35.13) is regarded as a definition, (6, loses its independent
position and we recover the action %pression (35. XI), ~viththe effective scaler
source indicated in (3514), and the additional contact term  ~ ( d z ) + l < ' ~ , .
188 Fields Chap. 3
and
the restriction to first derivatives does not assure the uniqueness of the Lagrange
function. Generally, two Lagrange functions that refer to the same system are
connected by a relation of the form
since the local divergence term does not contribute to the integrated action
expression. I n this situation,
"
where H,,r is symmetrical in p and v , ~vhile
H H & = X"',. (35.42)
The field ewatians are
ahH,,h  avHL+ m2(+,v+ +gr&) = Tpv +g,.T, (35.43)
vvith the left side (specifically aVHJ syrnrnetrized in p and v, md
afl+rvf a&hB m W H,v&= L:.,, (&5*4)
in which
since the rorpare symmetrical matrices and +(z) anticommutes with a,$(t).
Spin 4. Vectorspinor field equations are
lyA(l/i)ah4 m]$,# (l/i)a&yp$P T,(l/i)ap+P 4 ?,[R%  ~ ~ ( l / % ] a k ] r ~=$ @
V@,
(35.53)
and they are embodied in the actiorl
(dz)[9'r0$, + $1
with the Lagrange funetion
The second and third terns effect an explicit symmetrization between the appli
t to the left,
cation of the derivatives to the ~ g h and
where the fachr 112m is supplied to make the two action expressions direetly
compar@ble;otherwi*, it esn. be abs~crrkdinto a common scale factor for field
~tndsource. The value of the W that is implied by (3562) can be pre~entedm
which a s s e d that the two actions diger in eontent only by a contact term. The
Iatler removes the contact term that was added in Eq. (S4.1). Another such
remark is based on. the eornmutativity of the s y m m e t ~ c dmathx i ~ ~ ~ 2 "
with ?!?g, as well as with the matrices (ror@),. On decomposing $ and into
component8 with the aid of the projection matrices +(l the aetion
expression (35.62) completely separates into two independent pshs. Thus,
it is possible to use a reduced form crf the action. principle which contains only
one of these field components and its assaeiaLed source* The latter aetion should
be multiplied by two in order to retain the same scale for sourees and fields,
That the above procedure only changes eontatzt terms is vel.ifid by considering
35 Action 193
diEerv from the original action only by a contact term. Next, supposc? that one
of the two projection matrices
a,consistent projectioxi of field and source onto a subspace has bwn brought
about. The signifieanee of this new aetion is given by
only the contact term has been altered, and the same physi~alsystem is h i n g
+
e r secondorder formulation,af spin has any pra&icaf.
described. But ~ ~ h e f hthis
merit will not be diseu~edhere. One remark is in order, however, The r6
dependent contact term in (35.70) i s imaginary (roir,is antisymmetrical and
real) and should be subtracted from the secondorder action to: prBerve the!
detailed physical equivalence of the ttvo descriptions, Sinee thia subtractive
term is given contact form through the use of the source v, and not J, it empha
s the ~eeondorderfomulatian could not be adopLed m the fundamental
s i ~ ethat
+
spin description.
7M Fields Chap. 3
where
r= 7 = 7:y;yg
:
and
in which
C r:(l/i)a,ln*
c = [m  i$ (35.75)
For this situation, we have
where the last term can dsa be wfitkn [cf. Eq. (34.19)l
The symmetricd field and ssource spinors of unit spin me dven general form by
which has ~ f i p p ~ r ebefom,
d in other notation, as the wcond line of Eq, (29.70j).
The commutators and trace evaluations sLaM in Section 29 apply here and
$ve immdiakfy :
4 +M""%,
(da;)fJ""br, + cl,
(35.82)
+
e = tGp'(a,#r  a.+F)  t+@a'a'c,. ~@@'G,. +m'##p.
This .is the firsborder form (35.27,28), with the derivatives symmetr.rzed in
application; to vtt~t;orand knsor fields;, Similarly, the 8ntisymrnetricttl
spinam af zero spin are presented rias
implies thad a brm of the matrix 3, that commutes (anticommuties) with i l ~is@
an eigenvector of 1"iiY52 with the eigenvalue 1 ($l), Both (?igenvalu@&re
reprwented in the expressiom (3531) and (35.83). In applying the second
orcler aetisn form (35.621, it is permissible to use projected vemions af the
field and source, as illustrated for spins X and 0, re~gectirrely,by
+ rryO+,,
~ r n  l / ~= +
2rnIizt = r@ro(J, apM,.) (35.86)
and
2n'l2$ = ir9r0@, 2rn"'t = ir&~'(K  a,Kr), (35.87)
where the f structurefs are the appropriate projections of (35.61). With thee
rduced fields and sources understood, the aetion (35.62) becamm (a factor
of 2 is supplied)
The trace evaluations give directly the action expressions (35.18, 19) and
(35.11, 12) with the effective vector and scalar sources, explicit in (35.86,87),
th&t have been s t ~ t e dpreviously. One can also mske the opposite choices in
these projections, and we record those action form which are, for spin 1 and 0,
Actian 19c7
and
The effective sources that appear here are M,.  (1/2mZ)(arJ.  aJ,) and
K,  (11m2)d,K, respectively.
Wr; ahall close this section with a few varied comment8, First we recall that,
although we have not illustrated it here, the possibility exists of redefining
sources and fields by linear transformations which change the detailed ~ t m c t u m
of the field equatians and, therefore, of the Lapange. functions. Then it is noted
that all discurnion has been concerlled with the vacuum smplitude (O+~O_)~.
The shift of atbntion to other transformation functions k convittyed by a cfiange
of boundary conditions in the action principk. Let us be mplicit &bout the time
cycle transformation function (o/o)'~'+. Here the action separates into
two snalogous terms, with opposite signs, that are associated wilh the two smsw
of time development:
where the latter is 1Eq. (23.44). Then the action (35.18, 19) becomes
798 Fields Chap, 3
which, as shall, be discussed in greahr detail laCer, deseribs the photon, and
rtlferring to a massless gatPticb of zero spin (helieitd. Notice that the Lagr&nge
funetion of the spinless particle comes entirely from the mms term of the original
Lagrange function, and would have been overlooked had one merely get m = O
in. (35.19).
The other example is spin 2, where we express the tensor field and its
source by
= h,.  (2lt2/m)(a,A. + d.A,) + 6  " 2 [ ( 2 / m 2 ) d p a4~ @p&], (35.96)
and
a,TF9 = m 2  ' l Z ~ & , alrJ@= m ( 3 1 ' Z ~ 2  " 2 ~ ) , (35.97)
the latkr being Eq. (24.21). These structures are such that
When (35.96) is inserbd into the actiorz (35.30,31), and the limit nz 0
performed, three independent parts are obtained, Two of them restate the unit
and zero hellicity actions, Eqs. (35.94) and (35.95). The third one is
As we shall also discuss later in more detail, it is the (or a) gravifon action
expression. This time the photon Lagrange function emerges completely from
the mass term of the spin 2 particle, as indicated by
but the scalar field action has contributions from b t h parts af the original
Lagrange function. Xt is an interesting unification of the actions repre~enting
massless particles of various helieities to connect them with one action expression
for a massive particle, Also impXied are the relationships between different spins
necessary to amive ad a common description for a given helieify.
lnvarianee transformations and fluxss. Ghsrga 199
since all the Euclidean products in (36.1) are unchanged by s common rotation.
Next, led p become an arbitrary funetion of position. For simpfielty we consider
an infinitesimal phase transformatisn and write this generali~ationof (36.2) as
which leaves K& and $2 unaltered, and fails to keep W invariant only beeause
spacetime derivatives now act upon $ @ ( X ) :
where
j@(.) = a"+(.)ig#(.).
The eonsiskney of the two evaluations implies, with the aid of an irrtepation
by pards, that
+
gPjp(z)= (z)iqK(z). (&G, 10)
This is verified directly, on using the field equations. When the righbfrand side
iis zero, which is true in sourcefrw regions, we recogni~ethe local stakment of a
con~rv&tion law. If the charge matrix Q is diagonrtliged and ~ompfexsources
intrdtreed, the action expression. and %heproprties of jfi became
and
jfi = z"(a"4*4  4*a"@), d p j f i= i(@*K K*+), (36.12)
where
~ t hthe
, remind= th& #* is naC the complex conjug%teof 9. S t a b m e n t ~anaEo
PUB to all thew apply to the vacuum time eyele action with agproprbte afge
braic sims in, 6t.F" Lo indicah fhe sense of time flow.
Using this more general, framework, we now reexamine the causal situation
+
with K = K Z ITz, where the phme of K 2 i~ changed by a eo&ant and that
of XI i s held fixed. For the infixliksimd dransformstion b i n g consider&, we
know that
This wei&ted average of the charge values rewmbXes an. expectation value.
I n d e d it is one, if we consihr the time cyele function, with the phase of K,+,
displaced, a f k r which $he two sourea are identifid with K,
which identifies
dgIr;iIr= (Q):*
In the latter situation jP(z)is computed from the real or mutually conjugatpl
mtarded fields, and is a real function.
f t is evident that j"(z) provides a spacetime account of t h distribution
~ and
flow of chargeit is the charge Aux veclor or current vector, We sh&llevaluate
it for a singlepahicle state. On referring to Eqs. (31.7981), it is seen that the
fields in the region between emission source K Z and absorption Bource .Kl, W*
eiakd with a positively chsrged particle of momentum p, are
The source factors identify the emission and abwrption seLs [compare
Eq, (36,19)1; the cument associakd with the particle is ZpP clup. We can con
firm this by verifying that the total eharge is unity. But first it must b recsg
nizled that the uniform value of the current is an idealization, which applies in
the interior of the parfiele beam but fails ss one nears the edge@.Of coume, the
momentum is not s p c i f i d with arbitrary precision, as in (36.22), but within
a cell of small but finite dimensions, having invariant measure bw,. Thrta, the
correct description is given by
To compute the tots1 charge one can integrate the eharge density jyx) over all
202 Fields Chap. 3
and
4*(x) 
Similarly, for a negatively charged particle,
(do,) '12e'pzi~zp, 4(x) = (dwp)112eipzi~*
IP, (36.26)
with an analogous verification that the total charge of the particle is 1. The
retarded fields of the time cycle description that are associated with a given
momentum, and positive or negative charge, are [cf. Eq. (31.84)J
where the surface integral refers to any spacelike surface that is subsequent to
the source region. On any surface that precedes the source, the retarded fields
and the current vanish. The explicit form of the righthand side is
36 lnvslriancs transformations and ftuxes;, Charge 203
This supplement to the charge density, V n(x), ~vheren k = m'*, adds a two
dimcnsianal surface ixrtegral to the charge associated with a threedimensional
volume:
(36.36)
Thc calculation of tatnl cllarge is not affeckd, therefore, nor is the value of the
flux vector assigned to a uniform ~ituationsince this is also fixed by total charge
corisidcrstiorrs. Wlxy can one not ignore the ambiguity and just accept the
currexrt expression that is naturally associated with %beLagzlrtge funetion?
One reason is that alternative Lsgrange functions can produce: diaerent currents.
This is illustrated by the unit spin, situation.
Tlre seco~ldorderL ~ r a n g efunetiorr (35.19) and the firstorder Lagrange
fune tion (35.28) imply, respecdively,
and
In the abrsense of the source M,,, these current expressions are equivzttent. But,
when we use the Lsgrange function ($5.231, there results
Let us apply this to the region betweert tbe %Mo causally sep&raM souree8
.l !,
JS, where the fidd is [Eq. (33.3)]
The flux per padicte, 2pp hp, imlearfy of univemal appliwvdity. Aa we have
mentioned, it is fixed by Lhe normalization condition, in the manner m d e pre
c k by (36.25).
One might think that the arnbiwiw of current exprmions is an! asp& of
secondorder Lapange funclions, wit)l their ogtisns in arrandng $WO cferivatives,
&nd would disskppear if firs&arder Lavange functions m r e adopted. T o dispel
this iXlusian it suffices ta wmidtjr pin 2 charged padicXes, where two 6mbordr;r
fwms art;?avaiXlzble. From the Lagrane function (35,s) we obtain,
with the latter form applicable in soureefrtze: regions, whik (35.41) gives
where, it is recalled,
= (2m d~~)"~u,,,e'~',
* 0
UpuqY UP@Q = 1,
The contribution to 3'"" ttsscrcinted with a singleparticle s t a b is
since the mLisymmetrieaX m a t ~ xQ; removes the mateh between the antieom
mutativity of the sources and the antisymmetry of the kernel ?'G+(%  X').
According1y,
with matrix notation regtored for the third spinor index, are satisfied since
frr^(l/i)a,
l = 0. (36.65)
The current that is defived from the first Lerm of (36.61) by inserting (36.63) is
36 tnvariancs transformations and f Iuxes, Charge 207
m,, =  2 l
9~@"'.~'k
3 2m 2
The o;,term is the only such structure that does not involve coordinate dcrivn.
tives. Ana;Xogous but more elaborate comparisons can be medc between alterne
Live descriptions for particles with spins 8, 5, , . . .
The technique of vsriabfe phase transformation. hag been used t o give a
more detailed spacetime dewription for the average charge distribution, It
also supplies such information about charge fiuctualions, We shall illustrate this
for spinless particles, confining the discussion to the simplest measure of ffuctua
tions. Consider, then, the time cycle vacuum amplitude with the sources
K,+,(z) = e " " ~(X > t K(I(Z~== K(%)? (%6,70)
which is
This equation, with cp = 0, has been discussed Now let us differentiate once,
before setting u, = 0,with the consequence that
where
In k r w of the~efield8 we have
the maf,compnent is
In the circumstances to whieh (36.79) refers, which are made explieit by the
apprance af the funetion eret,(g)# the advan& field vani~hw. And the
contfibution ts 4 of $+fat. caned#, XeaGxlg the re81 fom
Since the lstter is a solution of the homogeneous field egustion, one finds that
) C K , , I ~ . (36.87)
(dzf)~(z)h'+'(z z f ) ~ ( z 8=
(h)
P@
The latter is the expected total number of particles emitted by the source,
and thia fluctuation formula
((Q  (~))')f
= (N+ f ~ )f (36.88)
is contained in the more general statement (22.123). In effect, jt,,,, is a partiele
flux vwtor.
Invariance transformations and fiuxfslo. Mechanical propertisrrr 205)
The following are the proposed eneralizations of tberse expressions when 6XY
becomes an arbitrary function of position, 6 z v ( ( z ,
only the first term on the right would appear for tz rigid translation. An equive
bnQgresentation is
62 == d,(6zp&)  tPya,&X,, (37.7)
where
tPw(z)= aP4(z)av+(s) gpve+ (+(z)) = $"(X). (37 8)
Let us also xlote the relation
mrhere the fins1 form involves the use af the field equation. The chsne;e induced
in the action by the source variation of (37.4) is computed alternatively ss
270 FSelbs Chap. 3
and
Similarly, in the time cycle situation the displacement of K(+, and its subsequent
identification with Ktt = K gives
where ESY(z), kvhi~his computed from the real retarded fields, is also red.
The distribution and Aow of energy a~ldmomentum is described by t"(z).
It is the enermmomentum flux vector, or stress tensor. Let us evaflxak it for
the state of a single particle, chosen to be neutral, for simplioity. In the region
betgveen the causally separated sources, the field that is associated with at
particle of mometrtum p is
37 lnvarian~atransformations rand fiuxaa. Mechanical preperties 211
The first parL of Lhe: field, associated with KZibelf, does not corrlribute:
since the gradient of the symmetrical function &+(X  z F )is tan antisymmetrical
function. Accordingly, with a slight rearrangement we get
(dz)(dz')iK l (s)(l/ i ) a ' ~ ' (~X '  zt)iK2(z')
The analogue of (31.27) for the time cycle description is the expetation value
Notice Ghat the distinction between the two forms die~ppearsfor a rigid rota
tion, where
(3, 62, = a, = SW&@. (~7.a)
The reBpome of the Lsrsnge funetion
is
+ ace#. 
e = +Pad (~7.35)
Tadeed, the distinction between field and source variations disappears com
pletely were we to adopt
How does this freedom to choose the form of the displacementinduced v%riatiorts
r%Eectthe identification of the stress tensor, defined generally by
which vanish for rigid transfatioxls and rotations. This tensor is a, memure of
the dilation produeed by the displacement, and includes the scalar measure
c3, 62". The same dilation tensor appears in (37.M), in consequence of the
symmetry of the stress tensor. Consider, for definiteness, the effect of the addi
tional field variation
This is also what is requird in order to maintain consistency with the dimet
25(3 Fisjtds Chap, 3
an$ the ori$ttnd stress tenmr reappears, with an add4 brm. that vanish=
outside sources. But the direct w e of (37.74) yields
which, in sourcefree regions, is the result obtained in (s7.9) through the use
of the field equations.
The? question of uniqueness intrudes agrtin in this exrample. The rearrange
ment that eonneets (37.72) and (37.73) mighf have been haadled digereatly :
This is true for angubr mamntum also. The d d e d term i s p r e ~ e n t din the
form of (37.52) by choosing
' = &[B"3p
fh +
+hydfl 28'ya"+2. (37.81)
Observe that this expression is symmetrical in p and v, but does not have the
antisymmetv that is stakd in (37.51) The annulment of the last krm in
(37.50) comes about, instend, through the differential identity (it is (37.79)
again)
akarfk" 0. (37,52)
The rejection of stress knsor terms that invalve digerential iderttities is thus
an essentid aspect of the computation rules. But we art? noiv going to sese that
stress tensors are quite analogous to charge flux vectors, Arty current vector
+
'j can be replaced by jw a,mp",with arbitrary &ntis~;mmt?kicaf ntF"". Qmmight
ag;ree ts rejeet such additional terms in studying a given Lstgritnp function, but
the existence of different Lagrange funetions for the same system, leading to
current expressions that differ in just this wayl shows that the arbitrariness is
intrinsic.
The arbitrariness in symmetrical stress tensors i s expressed by the possi
bilify of repfacing tp"(x) \\ith
where
and it will be verified later that the total angular momentum is equalXy un
aflected by the additional term. In the simple example provided by (%Ten),
Two significant derivative combinations of this tensor are given in (35.37) and
(35.44). For the first, antisymmetrical combination we deduce
and further reduetion c m be acconnplished with the aid of the field equations
ahck" = m2+pp, axc;pAp .= 0. (37.102)
Thus,
ah(Gh'*+'.) = m2$pK+vK+ f G""C~'~ (37.103)
gives
The spin Lerm only contains 3, 6%"  d, 6q,. There i s no symmetrical hnsor
%hatertn be deviged from matrices, other tbwn g&" multiplid by the unit matrix.
A specific mui%ipleof d, &X' appe~m,analogous to the seatar source reBponss!
of (37,4). The corr~spondingfield va;ri~tion,~vhicbis &sign4 to leave intact
$(h)?ro+fis
+
&\d.(%) == &'(~)ar$(~) iQo"@+(z)&8~,(2), (37.1 14)
The spirr. 4 Lagrange funetion
But the symxrretv of the second de~viativepicks out the matrix comGnalion
and, since the are symmetrical matrices, the last term of 642 vanishes.
Farthermore,
[rk,+opv] ~Bh~7r),
=i(ghF ~ (37,118)
and we get
66: == a,(lEa;'C)  tPVd, (3E .f 19)
tvith
+
F' = 1'. = ++ro$[rp(l/i)ap $ rp(l/i)a@]+ fve. (37.120)
The associated sealsr i s
t = m4+r0$  fVro+, (37.121)
37 lnvarlancs trrrnsformationa and fluxes. proper?les
lVIschanicr@
as one can verify directly. The various terms of 6A? show explicitly how the
8csllar nature of the Lagra~gt?_ funetion l e d s to the cancellation.of the rotational
sfrueture, leaving the dilationd part and thereby producillg a symmetrical
stress .tensor,
In the re@on b t ~ v e e ntwo causally septtrated sourees, and qz, the field
cllahd with a particle of specifid momentum, spin, and charge is
fEq*34.49)f
$(z) = $ p . p ( z ) i ? ~ p ~ p4 $ ~ ~ q ( ~ ) * i q : p . ~ . (37.124)
Thr?eorre~pondingstrem b n m r contribution is given by
ia quib andogous to the spin 4 situation, apart from the 6zy tern, for
now [u = rfr:]
6 8 = azPa,e f ++r&i (?:av r:ap)J.a,h,+
+
 ++r+(r:+~:' r k i ~ : ' ) ~ aaz..
~a, (37.128)
The identity (87.97) prduees ithe symmetriea2 stress hnsor
which agrees with (3"1.8) and (37.37) in regions where the veetor sowee
vanishes,
The generalization of the field variation (37.126) to an arbitrav multi
spinor is
which can 8180 be applied to the vmious auxiliary fields #raBlt J/iaB)lavt .. . .
sourcefree space all auxiliary fields vanish, and this property is not aBectc3d
Xrct,
by arbitrary displacements since the transformation law (37.133) refers only
to the 6eld under considerrttion. Accordingly, anly the first term of %heLagrange
funcLion (35.78) coxrtributes, and the resulk obtained for the stress tenmr is an,
immediate generalizatian of (37.X29), but wifh 6: = 0 befits the sourceless
circumstances:
where
+ rp(l/i)ap]q
tg = +qr"+(rp(l/i)a' (37.1 36)
is the stress tensor of the simple sginor or Dirae equation for sourcefree condi
tions. The additional terms can be exhibikd in the form of Eq. (S7.831, with
37 Invariance transformetions end flux=. NIechanfoet properties 223
where
jhhr = Z~th'  %'tkpe
This re8uIt is not independe~tof the divergence ewation for the ntress bngor,
since
ghjx"~ ghaxtkv  xpaxthfi + pp  p, (37.145)
AR analogous equstion applie~ta the time cycle demriptim, wbwe an@has the
impler physical inbmreta%ionin h r m ol an evetation value
Wer ~ h dnow
l confirm that the evaluation of total ~ 1 ~ @ momentum
ar is an
afleeM by the mbitrariness of the @%re88
&mar. AL~e~mpanying the redefinition
These conditions are vemy. re~krietive.We fimd nob the seafar relation
But even more is obtained by applying the operator a' to (37.153), namely
%ndrota
The corresponding form of 6xp, apart from infinite~imddran~Xa?;tiong
tions, is the quadratic=function
The quadratic form of (37.161) also admits refieetiow, including 116 + g&,
which hezs the following effect upon the xp coordintaks:
which, singles out the racalar t as the significant quantity. Inspection, of the
examples with spins 0,#, 1, 2, shows that the scalar E, evaluated a t sourcefree
points and with m + Q, either vanishes or is a secondderivative structure of the
form implied by the arbitrariness of the stress tensor,
Considered in. infirritesimal farm these settling lakvs specify a definite multiple of
4, Gzran example is (37.71) far scalar fields. The invariance of the action,
stating a local property of the Lsgrange function, requires that the scalar t
vanish everywhere or, more generally, be the divergence of a vector. As one can
verify in the simpler examples, this vector employs the gradient vector for its
construction and (37.168) emerges ss a generally vaIid statement for a, suitable
choice of field variations. Then, since the general $ @ ( X ) , Eq. (37.158), has
vanishing seeond derivatives,
and the action is invariant for the whole 15parameter group that ineoflporates
confomsl transformations,
As aImays, invariance of the action impties conserved physical quantities
with spacelime distributions and Auxes, The procedure is standard; the con
stants 6a and lib, are replaeed with arbitrary coordinatedependent functions.
We shall assume, for simplicity, that t = 0, If, instead, (37.168) is applicable,
additional terms appear in the various Awes but nothing basic is altered. The
response of the action to the generalizations of the conformal transformations is
38 Tha slectromagnstic field, Magnetic charge 227
with
C@ = tpyz,, C"  ~"Yz').
= 1fik(2~%2' (37.173)
The tensor c"^"is not symmetrical:

C ~ v == 22hjhpu,
and the implied scalar is
c = @pp8v 2zhek.
JR sourcefree regions, the Ioeal conservation laws are
and the existence of conserved total quantities is indicated, for Lhe time cycle
description, by
(37.177)
Although frequent. reference has been made t a the m +0 limit for unit spin
particles, it is important to give ark independent discussion of the field associated
with the massfess, unit helicity particlethe photon, The slarting point is
Eq, (23,45), written as
strict account must be tnkezt of the source restriction, which demands that
one shouId not identify the eoefieiexlts of 6Jp(ts). The correct conclusion, is that
they differ by any expression that leads to a vanishing integral in consequence
of the restrickion (35.3). The general form of such an expression is
Chap. 3
and therefore
(38.6)
The aspect of A,(x) that is governed by the arbiCrary scalar function h(s)
is p k k d out by forming the divergewe of (38.6). This gives
a.kV(z) = a2x(z), (38.7)
and the application of the differential operator aZ to (38.6) then provides
us with the mcondorder difflerential equation
since %heddition of ra gradiend term to a vector does not alkr the: curl of the
vector. Thst the divergeneetess nature of J P is built into the field equations is
8ho emphasizled, for
8,Jr = d,iZ,PV E 0, (38.12)
owing Co the sntisymmetry of F@". The curl construction of F,, is given, another
form in the differentid equa;tions
The Lagrange function is explicitly gauge invariant, and so is the action beclzuse
of the &iflerentialconsemation property of J@. This time we have bemn with a,
c o n ~ w a t i o nlaw and inferred an invariance OE the action.
In =king expressions for the murce and field vadsltians that are &soci&bd
with a r b i b eoordinak
~ displacements, id is natural to mabintain fhe conserve
%ionprope&y of J P and the gauge inrrafittn~eof FP,. The vecbr souree tram
formation law (37.33,47) has the required characteristics since
with
and
Thus, witb the weighting factor provided by the enerw density, the werage
value of x2 varies quadratically in time, with unit coefficient of (~'1%.The in
krpretation in Germs of the motioa of the particles &at carry the energy ig
clear: photons move a t the speed of light. The coefficient of z0 and the constant
term supply information abouC the initial. correlation between position and
velocity and tbe initial average value of X'. This view of i(dx)eO is consistent
with its ~ignificaneein terms of the momentum distribution:
38 The electromagnetic field. Magnetic charge 23t
The field strengths F,, and the vector potential A, are placed on the same
footing in the following action principle:
where
= %Fpv(apAp aVA,) + $p%,, (38.38)
is explicitly gauge invariant. The field equations now read
= P,
avFNv dpAp  a,A, = F,, + M,,, (38.39)
or
a V ~ p=
v p , a, * p v = *JP, (38.40)
where
*JP = a,, *MPv, 8, *JP E 0, (38.41)
and *MMvis the tensor dual to N"'. The stress tensor is symmetrical,
and
avrv= (JP+ a A ~ , , ) ~ p+vJ,M,~ + *J, *M". (38.43)
On setting Mpv = O and identifying the field strength tensor with the curl of
the vector potential, the previous results are recovered.
If the photon source function Jp(z) has the interpretation of an electric
current, according to the first set of the Maxwetl equations (38.40), is *JP($),
as realized in (38.41), a magnetic current? The answer is negative. It is con
sistent with this, but hardly decisive, that the total vdue of the apparent
magnetic charge is zero,
provided MN"as the kind of spatial localizability that attaches to the source
concept. The essential remark is that, through a redefinition of the field strength,
the magnetic current is transformed into an equivalent electric current. Indeed,
the equations (38.40, 41) are also given by
which contains the effective electric current already exhibited in (38.43). But
this shortlived possibility does raise a fundamental question concerning the
existence of real magnetic charge, distributed and flowing in a manner that,
explicitly or in context, differs from (38.41).
To study this question, we go back to the beginning, to the source. Is it
possible to distinguish two fundamentally different kinds of photon sources?
But the two kinds must also be closeIy related, for the structure of the Maxwell
232 Fialds Chap. 3
This suaests that the de~ireddisLinetion and relation b"Ewn two frintds of
soumes is realized if the memum of their eaecfiveness in emitting a given phuh~t,
1abeIed pk, udililieg e , ~for one kind of sourn and *e,x for the other. Thzrt is
indicated by (red pala~zationvectors are u ~ e dto reduce the number of @tars
in our ctyc;s)
$,X = (d@,)"2[@p~ $(p) 4*@,h *J(p)]. (S8.W)
Ths equivarfcsnce of the desefiptions that are eonnecM by the @@wee tram
formation of (38.47) then expreBses the freadant to rotate bath s y s b m of
pols~sationvectors tXlroughthe common angle p.
Again we consider a c a u ~ dsiluakion, brtf now with compnmt sour JC;,
V1; and J t , V;. The coupling betmen the exnission and &~orptionsowem
that a single photon, mediwks is conveyed by
can be extended to include the third unit vector prardlel to p, thereby introducing
the unit dyadie:
under the eausal conditions that mquire the photon enerwmomentum relation
Also relev&nt, but holding without regard to eausal arrangemen&, are the
current conservation statements
Of the two k r m s on the righbhand side, the second vanishes when gP is a photon
mamentum ohying (38.582, and the first is indepndend of the gpcific choiee
af vecbr &(p) that obeys the restriction (38.57). This is in, fact the proof of
covarianee for cmsaf eireurnstanees, But same explanation is caitled for, A elarss
of functions Ghat obey (38.57) is given by
where n, is an arbitrary constant vector, ff n, points along the time axis, fa2
example, we h w e the situation of Eq, (38.56). That eharae.t*rtrizatioaof f,(p)
is not eavariant; after a Lorentz, transformation is perfomed, n, will have non
vanishing ~patialcompsnent~,although it is still a, timelike vector. 1%ias here
that the arbitrariness of n, enters, for we can replace the timelike vector by ons
with only a kennporab component. It is &rough sueh coupling of the ehoice of n,
234 Fields Chap. 3
is eRectiwly onc? in et single vrtriable, For the gituation of (3856), with only
no $ 0,we get
aojO(z g') = a(xa  X@') &(X  X)). (~8.65)
The soluGion is not unique. Two alternative solutions that correspond to re
tarded and advane& bounday conditions are
where
represents the Heaviside step function (the capital of the Greek letter is H,
as the eapitrtl of i5 i s D, in the Chalcidian alphabet). Another choice aligns the
vector n" tvith the third spatid axis, for example, Then
in, which
stances, If one of the f" functions in (38.66) were adopted, an, additional causal
elernenL, which i~ arbitrary and physically irrelevan%,would be injected into
the description, ]in contrast, the kind of funetion illustrated in. (38.69) is
bmporatly inert;, and its arbitrary aspecls are confined to spatial directions.
Since causa1i"ty is a fundamental widing principle, we reject the use of funetions
such m those in. (38.66). Without being commitkd to the specific examples of
(38.69, '?Q), we do insist that f"(x  X') have a, spscelike direction and be
loealiaed in its timelike coordinate excursions.
The desired spacetime exLrapoltzLrion is glxven by
Xn verifying that this properly represents the initial carnal situation, we en
counter the Fourier transforms
and
whieh are involved in reproducing the last two terms of (38.51)' The latkr
are interchanged by the substitution:
JP (P) + *J,(p), *JP(p)+ $#(p), (38.77)
To test W for this symmetry property it is convenient to introduce fourdimen
sional momentum xlotatiart :
The effect, on the last term, of the substitution (38.771, combined with
p,+ p, and p ++ X, is
where the Iwt form involves the inhrehange of the indiees h: and V, The fwa
gauge inv&nisrttfields
then obey
dvF""(x) JP($), 3, *Fp"(%) *J'(x), (38.89)
But only if *Fp"(;e)is the dual of F""(%) can we, procbim these to be the general
f o m of Maxwellk eequa;ttions, with electric and magnetic eurrent~,
A direct proeedurr; for &is purpose is to evaluate the curls of the two vechr
patentials A,($), *R,(s) and compare the results in (38,88), Here is another
identity that is valid for any antisymetrieal hnsor Q@,,
+
a, *G,& a, *G&,+ ax *Q@,=  % Y x x a , ~ a . (38.90)
1xr consequence,
with a similar expression. involving *A,(s), and the use of the differentbl
equations
gives
The necessary dual relationship is exbibikd here. Notice that the gauge in
variant field stren&ha are also independent of the arbitrary veetor $,' It is
e~identthat thme kasors obey Maxwell's equations, The converBe is also %me;
the solution of the MaxwelX equations with outgoing wave boundav eonditiom
is just (88.93). To verify this the identity (38.90) is applied, hthe form
238 Fields Chap. 3
which. produtees
a2Fpv= a , ~ ,  3 , ~*(a,~ *J,  a. *JJ. (38.96)
The dwired ~olutioaiis that stakd, with its dual, in Eq. (88.93).
Apast from the characteristic freedom of ga;uge tr~nsforrnalions,the fm
vector potentiebb ean be exhibikd in kms of the field slren@hs. Fir&, let ua
sbmrve that
(38.97)
h= the Foarier transform
The conmquenf v~nishingof a,(%) is exploited to derive from Eq. (38.m) tba&
which also uses the diWFerential equation obeyed by f"(z  zf). Thus,
Xn 8rriving at the last expressions the following property of the dual is used:
The latdtjlr passea the action propedy. But one must etppreciak the context,
describing the independent field variables. In (39.Q, for emmpte, the fieMs
A,, F,, are subject to independen%variation, while the a;ymbol *A, stands far
the functionat of the field s6renGt.l. Gensor stakd in (38.103),
* (dz')fp(z  z') *F~.(Z'). (39.8)
This is verified by performing %heindicated operations, whieh e;ive
2 Fields Chap, 3
Proeeding from the dual La Che last equa;tian, the =and mf of M%xwellt~
equationis,
a, *F,,(z) = *P(z~, (3s.xo>
is generahd by diRerentiation. The con~tructionof A,(z) M l m s M in
Eqs. (38.99,100). The use of (39.7) is anslogous, with *A, snd *FpF,, as inde
pendent fields while A, i s defined as a functional of the *F,, by (38+101),
and both sets of Manuell's equations have been derived in s symmetrical way
from the i4~;ftian
expres~ion(39.12).
By this time the bypodhetical alert reder of li~tiessddeatian, hencefadh
aefanycnicdly known as Harold, can no longer reatrain h
exchawe ensue^.
39 Chargs quantiration. Mass normalization 243
H.: You showed in the previous section that the apparent magnetic ~fZ&rg@
given in (38.41) could be transformed aws~y. It was intirnahd that a different
kind of mapetic current would be forthcoming. Yet the action pdnciple of
($9.6) and the Geld equations (39.9) etre identieral in form to (38.57) and
(38.391, with
and indeed

How then can you claim that true magnetic charge is rrow k i n g disc
S.: Mistake me no$, goad Sagredo, er, Haratd. The fundion, (39.a) does
differin contextfrom the source function of (38.41), far it lateks that depw
of facalizability which is characteristic of sources. Consider, for example, the
choice of $,(s  z') with only the spatial companenf
whieh need not be zero, That is in contrast with *he null value of (s8.441,
which ~vasbmed on the sptstial loedizttbility of "dd,,fz), Had we umd the add
fC^function of (38."i"), the explicit form of *Kfo3(z)would be digerenl, bud xlat
the value of the surbce i h g r a 1 that produces the totd magnetic charge. Ths,
it is through the special properties of the class off functions that we make the
transition from mere semblance to the redity of magnetic charge. At the setme
time this poses a fundamental problem since the detailed description would seem
to depend upon the arbitrary choice of the f function, for whieh there is no
physical basis. Surmounting that formidable difficulty is the task to which we
now rtddress ourselves,
Let us introduce into (3881), which is the diEerential statement of the de
pendelice of W on the source functions, those expressions for bJp(z)and 6 *JP(%)
242 Fields Chap, 3
(instead of "8, syrnbola such as g are aho used hut we wish to emphasize? the
symmetry between electric and msgncsLic quantilies). The eau~almotion of the
points is conveyed by the restrictions
since the point % p ( & ) is infinitely remote from zp a t the teminalis of the integra
tion, The evident identification of the e, and *e, as charges attached Lcl the
individual moving points is consistent with the evaluation of the total charges,
ars in
do, dsP(s)6(1:  ~ ( 8 ) )= e,, (39.33)
where the inkgation sweeps the whole fourdimensional domain with dcr, dzp(s)
acting abs volume element.
We cttnnot sirnply insert theae expressions into W(J V ) ,however, The
latter was devised for continuously distributed sources and should not be applied
to s collection of point charges without reexamination of the physieab sipificance
244 Fields Chap. 3
where
Thus

cos px
h= nsturesl ulpper frequency limits if the motion of the particle: ia without di*
csntixluity, and the limit X' + 0 can, be introduced directly i ~ t Q
(S9.42). To
discuss
w,(X) = Re W@(&)
Doe8 wa(X) have a pfiysical sipificance"2t does nod. This quantity is wo
Gi~kdwith a single poinl; eh8rgf: or partide. 8inse the pa&icles that cornprim
a source have prescribed motions they are being idealized as very m m i v ~
parlicles, which are uninflueneed by the effe~tsthey praduee. The desc~ption
of their indi~duafmechanical propertie8 lsgically precedes the discussion of
inler~ctions, The nature of this description can be infemed from the rwultp,
s their vdues in singleparticle states: P"= 2 h , p p p ' .
concerning stress h n ~ o rand
As we have? expldnd, &is is a simgXificatian valid in. the intt3rior of a barn
whesc? fhe variation of momentum rand the associated firtih spatial exkensian
can km neglwbd. To reinshh these, we identify pp with the p a d i e d of a @me
function ~zndintroduce s variable weight funetion,
tp"(2) = p(z)aYrp(~)d"p(s);
the m rest~ction,
dpcparp $ m2 = O
recalls the momentum sipifieance of aFa. N o b that
and the foeal rneehanicd consemation laws are satisfied by the consemation of
padicle A l u ,
ar(~d)"v)Q. (39.48)
This interpretation &o supplies the value sf the intepal :
(39.49)
I n transferring these results to the connection bekvveerz action and stress Lensor,
one must not forget the meaning of 6s,(s). It arose m a generalization, of the
~ g i displtaeements
d given ta soureefri, which were inbnded to simulak $he &h
placement of a referexlee aurface and are therefore in the opposite mnse. Thus,
when tranglating h t o the motion of point particles a minus sign must be s&ed:
and supgies the action expression for a single particle, labeled a, performing a
preserihd motion,
(39.58)
x f,(z.(s)  I&(s~)
f X) dZbr'S"

ds"
C
a
4W,(X)
 *e,es)
1
C @a de:afN(x.  ~b f X)  C 6wa(X)
tab a &"+d
referring Lo 8ny surface that encloses the origin. The diserekne8s required by
ko a f i ~ k
(39,64) implies thak the suppod offp on any such sadace i~ ca~lfin~d.
number of points. And, in virtue of the qnnnnetry properLy (38,72),
fhat number must be an even integer, 2v. We may visualize $his number of
filaments drawn out from the o ~ $ nin a way $had assims to e a ~ hfilament its
image in the origin, Let the contribution to the sudam integral (39.65) th& i s
~~aciaLt?d with an individual paint a,a! . 1, , , . , 2 ~ be
, designs64 r, so that
The basic 8ilua;dian far (39.M) is that @ ( X ) , for example, incfudes a single point
a,while @(X) contains no support; point of p, Then
and the addition of sueh, sxpresaiong repmsents any other possibility. Xn. par
39 G h s r ~ quentization.
s Mass normalixat4on 249
or, making explicit that the paints of support oeeur in pairs with equa! values
of r, and n,,
This might seem to pose anotiier problem, hosvever, Although WE: retain the
symbol $W, it is no longer the change of a quantity W and the question of
uniqueness arises. Consider rz corltinuous deformation of the trajectories that
finally retur~isthem to the initial eonfigunttion, thereby defining a surface
exlelotjing s threedimensiond voIume. As the covariant generafizatiorr of the
threedimensional reletioxl
(39.75)
and similarly
4 do" *F,, =  (39.76)
of (39.77) record the amounts of electric and magnetic charge within the various
volumes, Here the basic situation occurs when particle b lies within the volume
@@(X), for example, but is outside of a,(X). The associated contribution to
d W is *(e, *eb  *e,eb), a multiple of 27r according to (39.69). This aammation
of the singlevafuedness of expfz'Wfwas inevitable; it was only of some interest
to see how the charge quantization condition brought it about.
The charge quantization demanded by magnetic charge provides a most
satisfying explanation for one of the more striking empirical regularities in
nature. Uespik the widest variation in ather propert,ies possessed by partieles,
the magnitude of the unit of pure eleetric charge is universaf. It is measured by
the fine structure constant
a == e2/4a 1=: 1/137.036. (39.75)
If we Msume that the smallest magnetie charge magnitude, "eo, eorresponds t o
the smallest; integer in (3972), the latter becomes
and
This is very large indeed, being the equivalent of the electrie charge 2(f 37)e.
However, one might think, if only for a moment, that this great asyntnniely
could be apparent since there is the freedom to redefine; dl eleetrie and magnetic
charges by the rotation of (38.47) :
+
eh = e, cos rp *G, sin p, 'eh = e, sin p f *e. cos p. (39.81)
Of course, there are invariants of this rotation in the twodimensional charge
space, including
+
6 * e t , e, *eh  *e,eb, (3982)
which correspond geometrically to lengths and angles Between twodimensional
vectors. 14fso relevant is the inequality
(e, *eb  *e,eb12 2 (ez + *ez)(ei +
Now consider the following invariant slatemend. For all known p~;t"ticles,
(ei f * e , 2 ) / 4 ~is small compared to unity. Comparisoll of the inequality (39.83)
with the charge qusntization condition (39.71) then shows that the integers
n a b must all be zero. The corresponding points with coordinates e,, *e, are
confined to a single line, which thus acquires an sbsoluk significance. It is
conventional to identify that line with the axis of pure e1eet;rie charge. The
complete leduction of the line to equally spaced points demands the existence
+
of a. second class of particles for which (e.2 *e:)/4r is large compsred to unity.
Among such particles there is no necessity for an. absolute charge line although,
39 Charge qusnfization. Mass normalization 261
if the integers of the charge quantixation condition assume only moderate values,
the charge points will clusbr near a, line, which is the conventional axis of pure
magnetic eharge..
It is remarkable that we have been led to the existence of two types of
charged particles that are characterieed internally by relatively weak and reIa
dively strong forces, for this corresponds to the empirical distinction between
leptons snd hadrons, respectively. Certainly hadronsmesons and baryons
are? not magnetically charged particles, nor do their interactions possess a
strength as great as (39.80). Rather, we view them as magrretica1l.y neutral.
eornposites of particles that carry both eleet~icand magnetic charges, with the
observed strong interactions of hadrons emergir~gas residuals of the considerably
stronger magnetic forees, lvhich thus far have successfully prevented the experi
mental recognitioxr of free magnetic charge, I t is essential far this explanation
that a magnetically neutral composite appear as an ordinary electrical particle,
If we have a group of particles wit11 charges e,, "c, such that
The ~bnalopeof (39.79)1 connecting the unit, of pure eleetric charge with the
~mPtflmtm ~ p e t i echarge, is the following connection between the unit of pure
mwnetic charge and Ithe smaliiegt elwtFic charge:
From our various tzssunrpdions, which are grounded in the symmetry. hlwws
electric and magnetic charge, we have inferred $hat the charge units on 8 d u d
char@ padicle are the same fracLion, 1/N, of the uniks of pure e l e c t ~ cand
magnetic c h a ~ e . Among the possibilities, 2, 3, . . . , which value hw nature
elected for the integer N ?
But fir& we musk digess $0 discuss the relation b t s v a n the tati is ties of
eompwitc3:petrticlm and their constituents. One approach uses the spinstatiskics
wnneetiam. A compasitc?b m e d of an odd number of particles with inbger 4 +
spin (F.D. 8%&ti~tiesf h= a regultant spin anguIar momentum thatt is also
inbger "f &. This eamposite particle o b y s F.D. sta%istics,I f there are an even
+
n u m b r of eonstituent particle8 with inbger 3 spin, the compsite p
inbgral spin and is a B.E. particle, It is as though a F.D, (B.E.) particle @&fie@
a, nninus (plus) sip and these ;9iws are mdtiplied to give the statistics of s
composite stm~ture. This is more than s mnemonic, far the $us and d n u s
signs identify the dgebmie propedies of the individual m u m 8 &at are m m 
pfictd to produce the eEeetive sourge of the composite sysbm. Now, as we have
mentioned, there are two varieties of hdrong; mesons, which are B.E. parkiclm,
and baryons, w h i ~ h&reXi".f). particles, If bLh dyps of hadrons are to km con
~ t m c t e dm mametically neutral eornposites of dual ehargd pa&ieles, the lattctr
eannot all be BB. particles, The simplest msumptioa is that they are all F.D.
partides; ~n wen number of such constituentss p d w m a B.E. particle, an d d
number builds a F.D. particle.
Cm the dud charged particles exhibit only one 8trength of magnetic charg~?
N o b %hatboth sign8 of the magaetic charge, linked to sign ehange~in e l m t ~ e
charge, will occur. This is the antiparticle concept, with both charge^ involved
in order to maintain the structure of the two @etaof Maxwell's equaliom, which.
have the field stren@h bnsor in common. If the only values of magnetic ebarge
are fl/N) "e and (l/N) "e, they must be combined to produce a neutral
composite, and sueh p a h of F.D, d u d charged padicles are B.E. particles;
bavons cannot be manufactured in this way. Eence there must be at lemt two
digerent eharge magnitudes, According to the magnetic analowe of the elmtrie
lattice cowtruelion (%9.90), the mametie charges on dual charged padicles
with the same electrie charge must differ by a multiple of *e, the unit of pure
magnetic charge. It would seem to be a rertsonable charachrieation of dual
charged pa~iclesto describe them as carving charges that artit smaller in magni
tude than the uniLs of pure charge. If that is granted, just two values of mag
netic eharge are admitted, With a conventiond sign choice, they are (X/N) *e
and [CN  l )f N ] *e. The possibje values of electric cha~grjwe analogoug:
(l/N)e and [ ( N  1)/Nje. Either electric charge can. be assigned to either
efioiee of magnetic charge, giving four dual charge combinations, although them
may be duplieatioxls of these assignmenb.
In ezddiLion to neutralizing a magnetic charge by its negative, which builds
a maon, we can now balance .the mapetic charge f ( N  IL)/RT] *.a against N  l
units of the magnetic eharge ( l / N ) *e. This is a composite of N F,D, particle@,
.
and N = 2,3, . . must be odd if the resuit is fo be a F.D. baryon. The simples1;
possibility, which we adopt, i s N . 3, Thus, bsryons are v i w d ~ZSe o x n p ~ ~ i h
of three entiLies that bear the magnetic charges, in. *e units, af 3, *,
9, We
learn, incidexllally, from *e = 3 *ea, that
tiom and bgin the study of ordinaq elwtgeal pa&ides in dynsmied eontexte.
Hawever, Harold finds ffimwIf compelled h eomment.
W.: You were quite pemuaeive wncerniw the imporlanm of svoi&ng
spculakive wumgtioxls about the stmctwe of partiefw, and yet you have just
e n k ~ i n ad very bold spe~ula$ioxlinded. Is %hisnot incomishnt?
S.: The final goal of rt phenomexlollogieaf theoq is fo mtabllish contact wigh
an underlying fundamental,Lheov. My injuxlction was agaiwk the conhsion of
phenomexlolo@cal theory with fundabmental bhwv. The organiaatio~and
$hearet,icaf simplification of ex~fimentaldab should not involve impEici"c
stmaturd assumptians. But, quite? independen%$ of Lhst develiopment, o m
may de;vim speealative candidztks for evmtual contact with %hephenomenolagt
~ a$heory,
l fifltim&te~uccessssboulld be spedttd through the la@cal aeparstion.
of these two phwes.
with
where
d&fF(rz: X') = &(s  X')
defines a, no$ unfamiliar class of functions. When the support of f@(z 2') is
restricted to spacelike intervals, the subtracted term in (3108) vani~hesad
any time for which the sources are esusaly inoperative, To keep uniformity of
treatment between jCI(z) and JP(z),we shall relate the canwrved vector, now
designated J:a,,, (X), to an arbitrary vectorial. function J p ( z )by
The vector potential Ap(z) must multiply the total current, in the action
expression. That can be rearranged to give
in which
A',(z) = A,(z)  a,  xj) A ,(x",
(dzk>fp(z (310.12)
which ha8 no apparent pbyslcaf sigrrifiesnee here. Note that the construction. of
A:(%) from A,(s) is a gauge transformation, such that the new vector potential
i a charaekriaed by
(dzt)f"(z  z f )A:(.') = 0. (310.14)
where ?(S) is arbitrary as far ss the action principle is concerned, But tha
divergence of this equation gives
a,dP(x) +a,ji"(z) = ?(X), (310.27)
and .tve recognize the MaxweEl equation
Ta connect the use of f@(z z') in defining s specific gauge with the concept
of electromagneticsource modele, we perform the fdlowillg phase transformation
on 4 and cap, without the accompanying gauge transformation:
eieqA(zj
+ @ie@Acz)
S
+P(z) 4
c35P f d ? (3 10‘B)
where
The gauge invariance of the Lagrange function is now matched by that of all
the souret, terms, since A, + A, + 4X
), induces
A(.) + A(z) "4 &(X) (310.34)
and
KA + eiegh(l) (z), K: (z) t eiegh'"' K A, ) (310.35)
While the charged partide field equations that are implied by the action
(310.33) continue to be given by (310.23) with the sources K", K:, the eleetro
magnetic field equation. presents ab different aspect. In contrast with the action
of Eq, (310,XS), &A, is arbiLrae md the charged padiele sources are furrc
tionds of the vector pakntial. The implieation of the latter fiaet is indictzkd by
z ) (dz)4 (z)iepxA( X ) &A(2)
( d z ) + ( z ) ~ ~ (=
(310.36)
Thus we ROW get
4jP(lz)
= JP(%)
$,PP(z)  (X') f &(z')ieq~: (%')l.
(dz8)fp(z z') [4(zt)iep~"
(31037)
1%iss just the Maxwellt equa;tion of (310.28), since
but this time we have m8de explicit a, contribulion to the electric cument that is
associated directly with the ehargd pareiele source,
Cowider Lhs fallowing fictitious source problem: A point charge e moves
uniformly with fourvector velocity %l^,
until at a given location., which we aidapt as $he o ~ g nit, g;oes out of exisknee.
Whad is the description of the phobns emitbd or absorbed by this act"i'he
curred vector is given by
[/
exp i (dx)(dx')J';( X ) D+($  zt)J,(z) + i/ (dx)(dz')J p ( x )D+(x  x ' ) J ~(X')]
,
where A.,(x) combines the field associated with J $ and the initial photons with
that having analogous reference to the final photons. Xn view of the causzal.
arrangement of sources, wherever A,(x) is of interest in (310.45), it is a solution
of the sourcefree Maxwell equations or, in momentum space,
which shows the equivdence, for the purpose of evaluating (310.471, of the
timelike jp function with the spaceIike
where x' serves as the reference point at which charge eq disappears in the source
and emerges on the particle of interest.
The members of the class of fC"functions given in (310.49) differ only in
the choice of the tirnelike unit vector nC",which represents the motion of the
280 Fields Chap. 3
charge in the source model. When fhe coordinate system identifies with the
time axis, f (p) has only spatial components that are independent of p@,
and
where
There is one choice off@that avoids the reference to an external unit veetor by
devising the latter from relevant physical. paramekm. It requires an exknsion.
of the structure sf f @fa include akebraic funetions of derivatives that act upon
the source funetion K(2). We indicate this repfacement in (310.50) and
describe its meaning by writing
where the Imt form is the analowe of (%10.44), one that is equiv81ent for the
ea;tleulation of phofan processes*
The discussion of spinless particlm is pa&ieufarly. simple. A rsysbnr without(
intrinsic angulm momentum ewn anEy exhibit scalar properties in ita rmt frame.
In the electromagnetic conkxd this permits manopole momeatch
forbids multiple moments, More generftfly, a particle of spin s, in its mg&frame,
@an possess multipole momenk ta the rnrtximunl order 28, That is, a spin 3
pa&iele can have arbitrary dipale moments; a, particle of u ~ spin t can have
arbitrary dipole and quadrupale msmenk; and so forlh. A sufi~ientlygeneral
eument expre~ionfor spin $ is
This way of writing the eoeBeient in the term thwt hras the form d , d ' antieipab~
the _identification of g as the wrclmsgnetie ratio, the? magnetic moment in tbe
unit &e/2m relative do the spin angular momentum fEq. (12.4)). Th8t be
comes clearer on. wing the i;dlen.tity (36.67), applicable in sourcefree regions, to
remite (31 0.57) ara
No such progerty has yet been detected, however. Since .the second tem of
the cument is identictitlly divergenceless, we still have [a, factor of e is i m h d
campared to Eq. (3648)]
a,jr(z) = ~ . ( z ) ~ ~(g).
ieq~ (3X 0.62)
The currend (f.E10.57)is ineorporai;ted in the fot10~ngslcti~nexprwion,
an8logous do (3 10,Is),
Thua, the identity of the two eoncepls is impo~edby imisfing that the aetion b
invariant under the unifid gaugephae tr&nsfomationwith
Notice that we have devised two independently gauge invariant 6errns. Tha
a r b i t r a ~coefficient8 a and b will be related to mabgnefie moment and deetGe
quadrupole moment. VVe shall not consider Che two additional couplings pro
dueed by replacing FE^" with its dual. They would describe e l e c t ~ cdipole and
magnetic quadrupole moments. The parti~Xefield equations derived from the
action principle are
D,$,  By+,  C,,  (blmZ)(~,kieqCA,
 F.hieqC\,) = M,,,
+
DvGpY m2+@ aFpiep.+, = JP, (310.73)
&ndthe electric cument vector, in sourcefree regions, is
ths lrtst of which, i8 an innpodant but not independent statement, This giva
The identity
+ (blm2)ah~,.(aE^dieg4v~1. (310.77)
where the d y a d i ~"ErEis symmetrlrzed, and we have dao picked out the term^ that
deseribe the propagating particle in a crausd arrangement. WiLh Lke coupling
of the scalar potential A' to the charge fe serving as s reminder of the nomali
gation, the linear coupling of the spin vector to the magnetic field identiifies
the g value :
g== 1 .  a + b , (310.81)
while the quadratic spin term @;iveg the quadrupole momexrt Q, in the unit,
(&e)/m2,as
& = 2b. (S10.82)
The idividual results obtained for g values when oaly the gauge covariant
derivative is used (s = fr, g = 2, 8; s 1, g = I), are given unifQrmXgby the
=I.
Hence, the rearrangement used for spin ean be applied to each of the n t e r m
that compose (3I0.83), giving
and all other multipole moments are %em, Note that the actud spin value
eaters only through the inequality s C: i n , and
for one csn identify $be probe source 6J" with JT. Since the field A,(4) is to be
evslunkd for $,(E) = Q, it is given by
apart from an irrelevant gauge term. The process in which m are interested
involves the @%us&coupling of three sources: J"; KK1, snd &. Tbe emission
source K2 is u s 4 to inject into the system the mornmtunn P p that, is redized
m two particles,
P" = F+k@, (3 l l.7)
where
Thus
This sowce is aperating in the extended sense, and we shall urn the designation
'extended source' to distinguish its mode of action from that of KIPwhich detects
the partide by absorbing mass m. A souree uLili~edin that way, performing
only its initial mission, is a 'simple source.' Now, the current of Eq. (311.6) is a
quadratic functional af the particle source and therefore ~ontainsa porkion
fiz(atthat is bilinear in K 1 and K 2 . ~ h igives
i a factor on the righehand side
of (31 1.5) thaL a'Iredy has; the required three sources, All ather te
different processes than the one af intertlst, whkk is displayed m
The omission of %nother f erm involving K l ( f "ieq&z (t") expresses the caustll
tzrrangement, The field + 2 ( ~ i~
) related to iits source by
+
The fact that P2 m 2 # O [Eq. (311.9)) means that the field 4z(z) has no
propagation efiaraete~sdics,and is localised in the neighborhood of the source
Kz(z), Thus the field cba(z) will have no overlrtp with a sufieiently remote
deteetdion. source Kl(x), which is the assumed causal situation. The term
'virtual particle' is used to extrapolate ordinary particle concepts to such
sihations where the energymomentum balance is not suitable to the creEtlion
of a 'real' particle. With our new terminology we can characterize the content
268 Fields Chap. 3
of (311.11, 12) by saying that the extended source may emit a virtual particle
which quickly is transformed or decays into a real particle and a (real) photon,
or it may emit both final particles in one act, although the photon originates
a t a different point than the particle.
The precise meaning of these phrases is conveyed, on comparing (311.1 1, 12)
with (311.3), by
where the first derivative refers to the X' coordinates. An equivalent momentum
version, which also introduces (311.14), is
left.
k * ~ z ~ ( W n ( P ) = 0, (311.17)
which is valid for p2 + m2 = 0 and arbitrary k2:
in which we have also introduced the form (310.44) for j,(k). The interpreta
tion is clear. From the viewpoint of the soft photon, the charge eq has made an
instantaneous transition from uniform motion with velocity n, to uniform
motion with velocity p,/m. This is expressed by the photon emission source
Notice how the two contributions, one associated with the particle source, the
other with the particle, are fitted together in an equivalent photon source. This
is an illustration of the selfconsistency that is demanded of the source concept.
The source is introduced as an idealization of realistic dynamical processes.
3? 1 Extsndd raurcssr. Soft photons 2@
The dynsmieal theory that ia erected on this foundation must, under appropriate
m~t~cfiong, validate iLs ~tartingp i n t , Thus we learn, not s u ~ ~ s i w l %ha$
y,
the aimpie photon murce dewnption becomes wficable to w realistie syr~tenn
when there i8 ne@igible re~.(tionassociated d t h the rsmimian or abmrption
procem*
We should a h recognize the phpical significance of the cavarianf f , fune
tion &ven in (310.56), which we now \$?ribas
where the Ifitkr version refers to soft photons. The eEwtive phof;on source
vanishes; the ehotrge hw not changed vejoeity and doe8 not r d i a h , This i~
the most natural Csf 80ur~emdels, in which the ernittd particle dekrminm
the velocity of the charge in, the murce and thereby supp the a~comptlnying
radiation. That mppre~ionis not limiM to mft photons, however, I f we imrf
the unapproximated version of ifp(k, P) in (311.16), it becomes (kg = 0):
The prabability amplitude for the emission of the two particltts labX1ed kX, pq
requires, beyond (311.23), the additional factors (dwk)'I2 and (dw,)li2, together
with the explicit slection of charge h e ttnd the photon pofari%a&ionX The?
latter is produced by scalar multiplication with the polarisstion vector et:, and
The veebr pfentirtl thsf represents the emitM pfiobn i s proportional to the
polarisation vector cif, and the gauge condition (311.25) demands that
f r ( k > & ~= 0, (3 1X . 26)
which 8~pPfemnts(311.24). Thus, with the Ghoice af I,(&) that is display&
in (31 0.49) we have
n,dr = 0, (31 1.27)
and this becomes c$& = O in the appropriate coordinate frame. The significant
obwmwtion i8 that, an mdtiplying (31 l . 16) by one of t h w plarizr&tionvmbrs,
270 Fields Chap, 3
in which 6K(z) 4 K l ( x ) and +(z) is related to the aowee Kz(s)by the field
eqtltttiarrs
(a,  iepA,(z))@@(z)+ m2+(g) = K;'(%), (a,  ieA,(z))@(zf = +&(z).
(31I.W)
The elimination af &, gives the ~econdorderdifferentid equation
Since both p;a&iele sources already appear in (&X1.29), the clws of proeeams wile
wish t;o aelect are exhibited by
where the notation emphasizes the dependence of .titre parti~fefield +z(z) upon
the veetar pokntial tf?(l)that represents the emitted photons in mlation ts
their deteetion souree JVfE ).
Let us fir& recovw the known ~inglephoton, result; in this new way. For
this we need the part of @i1(x) that is linear in the vector potential. The field
equation (3 l 11.3 I) retains just that amaunt of informa"cion when; it is simplifie$ to
Tfie first term on the right represents thtl rdiationless enzission. of the particle,
and the geeond one reproduces (311.1 l). The nth hrna of the power series
expansion of @ $ ( X ) in A'(t) describes %photon emission processes. If we agree
ta consider only soft photons, all such processes can be combined in. t l ~C O R R P ~ L G ~
farnub which, as we would now expect, is equivalent to w photon sotlrcjr?
dmeriptian.
3f1 Extended saurces, Soft phatone 273
in which the integration path is a straight fine canneeding x and x@,,as parame
t;~zedby
The identity
This vector pokntial has two ather ~ignificantpropertiers, fn regions; far from
the eleetrornagnetie source J v( t),
and, general1y,
(Z  z')PA;(z) = 0.
Hence, if we were to begin a construction of &$(x, z') ss a power series in A:,
reprwenting photon fields far from their d e b e t i ~ nSource, the initial hrm
272 FIelzls Chap. 3
The anll;ujtar momentum structure of the linear field streneh, trsrm assures it;s
commutstivity with a2; it also eommutea with the qusdnttic combination of
coordinate8:
[tF@r(g,a, %,a,), ~ z ~ F :=~ Pz ~F] ~ ~ S ~
= (31 1.50)
since
= F,.F""~, (31 13 1 )
is an. antisymmetrical function of p and v. AI1 this, and the rotationd invariance
of 6(2), shows that the differential equation. (311.48) can be sinnplifid Lo
We shall not stop now to solve the above equation, I t suffices to know that
~ T (z X') is an even function of field strengths, for this means that the field
depndence of bhe latter funetion can be neglected relative to its partner in
(31 137), since, earnpared La veetor potentids, field strengths contain an
additions1 photon momentum factor.
Introducing the8e soft photon simplifications, wrearrive ttt
The straight lim inkgral that occurs here bgins a t %bandmoves, in 8 dimtion
ned by the vector (z  g':")@%ward
, an effeeCiv~!lyinfinikly dista;nd point,
31 f Extandad sourosar. Soft photons 273
~incethe photon emieion processes are localized near the extended s o m e K%,
And, if the eoupling betwwn the padicle sources iis to be appreciable, the g*
me$~caldisplacement (;e  x')" muat coincide cIowly in direction with that of
&hemomentum veet;or of the exchanged parkiele. Accordi~gly,
where dQ is the solid an&e within, which the phohn moves, we get
This photon eaerw intepal doe8 not exist matbematica;lly, divergng both at
the upper and lower limits. But clearly there are physieal r e s t ~ e t i o nrtf~ bath
en&, When one reaches energies sL which the photon eeaws t;o be soft, the
evaluation ( S l 1 . W ) no longer applies, and a lower limit is 'by the minimum
delectable photon enerw of the experimentd amangement. Onee upon a time,
the m~themsticaldivergence at zero energy was taken literally, and this soft
photon phenomenon boame known as the 'infrared catastrophe.' As s. eatas
trophe, it nzhs rathw low on the scde. Consider %he&Berence that is impfied
in the vdue of ( N ) , depending upon whether the softmt photon considered has
s wavelength of visible light, 10' cm, or has a wavelength comparable to the
nominal radius of the universe, cm. Since v2 < 1, that difference is
where
[?(l/.;)la + dtbz(z>= a%(%)
is ~olved,in momentum space, by
The comparison with the exchange of one particle and one photon under non
interaction conditions,
supplies. the effective twopadiele source that represents the emission. of the
31 1 Extended sourc~s. Soft photons 276
5 )v p 1
eff.
= [rpeq + Ge (h l)gp~k.q]4, ( P )  f '(k)ieqv,(P)
(31 1.67)
Using the latter form, we observe that
m rP
eff.
 l ] eqn2( P ) (31 1.68)
and, on writing
rk = r P + m  ( ~ +pm),
we get
m YP
P =(YP+~) eqs2( P ) (31 1.70)
eff.
But this is to be used in the context of Eq. (311.65) where the field t,bl(x)
represents particles far from their detection source, and the Dirac differential
operator in (311.71) produces the required null result. Alternatively, we can
use the momentum form (311.70) and recall that
(X) = E irl:,.,(2m
P"!?
dup)" 2 ~  ' p z U *P ~ ~ P (31 1.72)
where
U~.,YO(Y~ + m ) = 0. (31 1.73)
Let us also note the photon analogue of (311.72),
A: ( E ) = U (dwk)" *
&X, (3 l 1.74)
kX
with
1%is evideat %h&,in the Emit of sof* photsns, there is an efTeedivephobn source
which is identicsl with the one encounkred for zero spin. This i s ta, be expc?cLr?d,
for every spin value. The suecwsive multipole moment efXecb involve ixlerettsing
powers of the photon momentum, and all become negligible compsred to the
charge aeeeleration rsdiabtion for suficientfy soft, photons, But the particular
choice of f@(k;) fhst removes the acceleration radiation no longer suppresses
photon emission completely, since the spindependent effects of magnetie dipole
moment8 remain in (31 1.79), and no ~pmializationof g can, annul bofh term^.
We have illustrated the e x k n d d source concept in the eonbxt of emission.
1%can all be repeated w i m the exkaded; source acb h absorb ab padicle and a,
photon. But the= inverse procet3ses are also d a t e d by the TCP operation,
concerning which nothing bm been said reeenfly. The eEw&of the Eutllide&n
basd coordinste transformstion
which finally provides a physical basis for the synnmetq propedy that, thus
far, hw been adopted for convenience. The puirely elcetrom%meticpart of the
action retainis its form undw this tran~formwtion,
But the compIc?& statement of the W P opration ineludes the revergal of sll
factam. The anticommutativity of the sources and fields msociaM with the
spin +,F", D, particle provides the addition& minus siw needed fo produce the
anticipratd invariance of the action under the TCP transfammation.
The TCP operation inverts the causal order, and inbrchanges emission
and abgarption processes. On applying the transformation. to (3 l l .M), one
quickly ve~fiesthat the whole ~truetureis mainlaind, and it is therefore only
neceBsary to change the eeusal labels. The same rem~rkapplies to the momerr
turn version (31 l .67), of course, except that we folIo~vthe practice of r a v e ~ i n g
the sips of all momenta when absorption proeews are being deseribd, which
the transformation automatieaIIy supplies. What has been shown in the spin 4
framework is of general validity,
In view of the nonlinearity of thia system, the construction of the fields in Cerm
of the sources wil be given by doubly infinite poxyermfie5, That is atss the
nature of the action tvhrtn the fields are eliminated snd W is expremed as a f u n e
tionsl of the sources, The successive terms af this series, W,,, with n particle
and v phohn saurces, represent increasingly colnplieated physical praces~es
whieh are thus mbo~t~ledged to occur, but will not be given &heirfinal dweription
rztt t h i ~first level of dynamical evolution. That is the meaning of an inbraetion
~keteton. At later s&agesof the dynamiml development, proceses already
present in skeletal form are provided with more complete descriptions, and
mme additional processes are recognized. I n thiss ~mtion,we propose to carry.
%hedigeu~sionof the simplest terms in the interaction skeleton to the p i n t of
displaying their observational implications.
There are t~\oasymmetrical ways t;o eliminate the fields. In the fimt, one
introduces the formal solution of the parti~lefield equation:
( d s f ) @ $ ( z ,z f ) q A(X'),
(3 521.2)
[r(G (z) ) + m]@$($,X') = 6(2  S'),
which gives the partial action expression
where
j&ne,(z) jP(z)  (dz"lf""(Z  x")aj"(~~) (312.5)
or in the equivalent form that uses the nonconserved currents and ~ $ ( z z)',.
The nonlinear field equation for J/ that is derivd from this tzetion is that of
(312,1), ~ t A,h replwed by (312.4) or (312.7).
Wbieh of them asymmetric hrms it is mos&convenient to consider depends
upan the process of intermt. Suppose, for example, that no photons arts in
evidence. Then one ean e t J P = 0 in (312.10) and marnine the nonlinear
prope&ies of the pa&iele fiftld, If the causal situation is such that interaetion~
aeew far from the padicle emission, and dekction saurees, which is part of the
amangemat of s s e ~ t b r i n geqefiment, the p Wmi in jtoa8.causally tied
to the sourcecan be i ~ o r e d .The inkrsetiott.tern of (312.10) contains few
particle field8 and therctby ett least four sowee factors, When we consider
prmesws that involve only four sources, as in particleparticle scattering, fhe
stationary aspecCs of the =Lion principle permit us to identi.fy $ with the field
which are a t Xeast cubic in the source, what is thereby lacking in W fim no let35
tftrtn six powers of the source since firstorder effects of the field change are:
annulled Lhrough the stationaw action prope&y, Thus we have ideIldifieib
where
jr(,) = IC(~)~~?@~.~PJ.(Z)
and JI(1;) is the field given in (312.11). Analogous r e u l b hold for any other
spin value. With spinless p&rticlr~?s, far example,
2 Fidhs Chag 3
and
(dz')A+(%  X') K(%'). (312.16)
The refe~eneeto the vector pokntid in the p&icle sowee has been dropped,
d t h the undersLanding that (312.17) vvill be applied ta pmes3ses in which
) umd as a ~imple
~ ( 2is pafiicle source, all partielephohn interaatiom occunlng
far from any of the sowees, To eixhlbit the individud W%,,we must expand in
power series the A@dependence of G$(%, S') and extract the term containing v
vmtor pobntials. For this p u r p e it is useful ta r e h k the Grwn% function
equatiorr of (S12.2)
+
(ria+ m)@$(z,z8)= 6(2  g') e P ~ ~ ( z ) ~ $ ( z , z '(312.19)
),
which is e o n v e ~ dCX7 an i n % v ~ equfttion
I by the formal mlution
G:(., 2') = C+(%  z') $ (dt)C+(z  8 e q r(6)~ ~ $ (S').
t, (312.20)
' e g r ~(s)G+ (z
(dz)(d~')#(~}r  z ' ) e q A~ (2' )J.(z') ,
(3az.24)
(dz)(dz') ( d z " ) $ ( z } ~ ' e ~($1
~G+(z
~i  z')eq~A(2')
X @+(X" X " ) ~ Q Y A (Z")#(Z"}.
(31 2.28)
The successive powers of A@are not p w ~ n k dwite4 so neatly as with spin 3.
The first two terms of the series W z , ara
which means th& the careful orctering of factors can be ignord if the vector
potential has a vanishing fourdimensional divergence, as is the sjitualion Eor
(Slt2.18). Bokntirtls having this property am said to be in. the Lorcsmtz gauge.
The imnndiak applications of the interwtion skelefon for which we have
b e n preparing refer to scatbring processes. Let us fherefore review the general
eonneetion between the source description and Lhe tr~nsitianprobabilitiw that
describe the @fleetsof inkractions among partictfts. The causetf ~ikuationis this.
Emission sources, generally referring to different kin& of psrtioies, act to produce
a multipartiele state sf parti~fesin a physicdly noninbracling condition, owing
to their initial apatiaf separation. Afkr zt sufficient Gme lapse, some of these
padiclm approach each ather, inhraef, and then separate to be eventudly
mnihilabd along with their noninkracting earnpanions by suitable detection
sources. The causd tknalysis of the arrangement is @yen by
since the vaAous power8 of the emimion and detection sozlrces Bewe to direetlig
identify initid and finat stake^,
The vaeuum prob8blliLy ampfitude is detemined by the action
(312.35)
where
tF""(Sl,Sz)=Wf(Sr+Sz)Wf(Sx)Mcl"(S2). (31Z.37)
The factor ~ X ~ [ ~ J S ~ represents
? G S ~ ] the exchange of those particles that happen
not to interact. And higher powers in the expansion of ezspfz'Wt]iindiertlt; the
possibility of repating independently in disjoint spacetime regions all con
figurations of interacting particles. Thus, the irfeducible interaction pmceslsrjs,
those that do not contain ndditiond noninteraeting parlicles and cannot be
analysed into two or more disconxreekd processes, are obtaind from
Invariance8 of the action imply selection mles for the tramidion probabili$ies,
Ri@d translations or constant p h a e transfomations of all souxces, far example,
which do not change Wy(Sx,S2), must leave the righthand side of (3/12.38)
unaltered. The emission and absorption s o m e prducts are multiplied by
reeipro~alphase canstrtnts, re1a;ted to momentum and charge in these examples.
The individual transitiolrz. probabifitim must vanish if the phase constants do
not cancel, expressing the neeessaw eonservatisn of momentum or eharge in the
interaction process. The fwtor that imposes momentum conservation,
will emerge fmm a spacetime integration over the inksactition ~ g i o n .We make
this csxplicit by writing
thereby defining the elements of the transition matrix. T. Thc inbgral is no&a
fourdimensional delta function since the integration domain is not infinite, T o
sppreciate this we must recall that the precise specification of individual mo
mexlta used here is an idealization that holds well ~vithina partiele barn, but
faits near the bounda~es. Where the initial and final beams overlap to &vct
esusail definition to the inkeraction region, (312.40) is applieabfe, and limiting
the integration to that finib volume is sn ~pproxirnateway of recopizing %he
realities of the situation, It is probability that is physically significant, and we
are actually concerned with
(dz) exp [i X (nh  tl,)p.z] (dz)(dzf) exp [i (nb  n.)p.(z  X')]
The 5 integration ean now be identified as a delta function, and the X intepal
memures the Wtal inbraetion volume V, within the uaeedainfiea attached to
the bounday liayers. The proporttionality of the transition probability to the
volume of the fourdimensional inhraction region ixldicabs that the impadant
quantity is the cwffieient of propontionality, the transition prab~bilityper unit
fawdimensional volume, or, per unit time in a unit threedimensional volume.
This ratio is
and the particular forms of A+($  z') disclose the caussl situation, The prscessj
we %reeoneerned with invdves the action of two emis~ion,sources and two
absowtion sourca. Thus, when (31 2.13) is considered, with the c
we m u ~ retain
t only tham eontribufiom having the required overall character
istic,, &s conveyed by the causaX indices. Those term8 are
they obey
pP
p; = 'p;eqr, pp,. = ~'@p.*
The eReet of complex conjugation is given by
where
+Pg (z)= ( d o p )' l 2(pqei~'
is the field associated with the specific particle Iabeled pqr, which enters the inbr
&&ion re$on after its creation by the source K%,,. Sinnilarly, +P,(z)* is the
h f d of the particle labeled pq which, after leaving the interaction region, is
annihilated by the detection source K:,.
The charge structure of the various partid currents that compo~e(312.46)
is of importance. In j$,(z), far example, the charge frtctar assoeiakd bvitlh two
incident particles of charges qhand g" 'is
and the necessary equality of p' and p" implies thet no eharge accumulates in
the interaction region. These am different ways of satisfying charge eanstirva
tion in the scattering process. The seeond term of Eq. (312.47) does not con
tribute to the sewttedng of particles with like ch~rgeand m examine that
process first.
The form of the current j";z(z) is
where
W&& L explicitly symmetried in p%, p: and d s a has the mquird pl, p: csym
metq &meovemjl momentum conservation implie8 th&t
measure: of their relative ffux is suggested by the requirement that it mwt vanissfr
when the vectors are: proportional, and the beams run with the same velocity.
This definition, is
2 2 11%
F ~ ( g a s b )  t (31 2.64)
which does produce a real positive quantity since the Aux vectors are timeXike.
If we write this out in terms of particle density so and particle velocity v = #/so,
the flux definition hcomes
which introduces the masses of the particles, Other f o m ~can be used, par
ticul~rlyone involving the total mass M, the invarisnG measure of %het o t d
moxnenturn,
= (pntpb) = m: i  Zpapa, (312.69)
namely
+
F = dw. d&b2[MZ (m, rnb)']li'[M'  (m.  rnb)'Izi2. (312.70)
The following ratio, probability of a transition per unit;fourdimensional volume
[(3It 2.43)j divided by invariant flux f (31 2,"i")], defines w, differential crass
aeetion. 1%is digerential since the final pahieles are gpecified within small
ranges of momenta, ets Ennited by momentum conservstion. 1nLel~;rations over
these diRerential elements supply variow diflerential erass sections of lmser
degrees of specification, le~dingfinally to a total cross section, althoagh the
latter mw,y not misf if very slight deflections e a r q a dispraporltionwtf? weight.
We shall uw the symbol da" generally for all diBerential eross sections, relying on
the explicitly stakd differentials La indicate its precise nature.
Energymomenturn conservation in a twoparticle scalteGxlirrg prmess fixes
$he energies of the scatbred particleg and leaves frw only two pa,ram&ers that
give the direction of the line alorrg which both pa&icleg move, in the rest frame
of the total. mamentum. We may as well inkgrate immediw,Le?lyover the distri
butions af those variables that mmme precise vsltlw. Let us consider sny pair
where the m o d vemian refers to the rest frsme of P, in urbich P' == M, The
magaitude of the relstive momentum
P S Pa B& (3 2 2.72)
is @ven by


1
 [M' 
2M
(m. + m b ) 2 ] " 2 [ ~2 (m.  (312.73)
h carqixlig out the enerm inbsa;tioxl thst selectis this value one must d k
where dft is the element of wlid angle for the relative momenturn. The immdiale
resuit is
1
X."".
1
3Sa2 M a P f 2  (ma + mb)'~'''[~~  (m.  ma)'] l" da, (312.75)
which rdtrees the &fierentid aspeet to the angles that 8pesif.y %hedirectian of
her ee m We nob that the same squareroot kinematics1 m
f a c b r ~aceur in the final 8tah ixlbpation (312.75) and in, %h(?:
incident flux
(S12.70). Thew relatively camplicaM factors will e~ncelfor a purely elstic
seatbring proew where initial and find perticks are the same.
The tramition xnat~xelement (312.62) provides a eimple application of
$he cross section. definitiorr, giving dirwtly
In the latter form, B is the defiection anlgle, and the full equivalence of the anglers
31 2 lntarraetion skeleton. Scattering cross sectlons 289
Of psrfcieular interest are the vePy high and very low energy limits:
Note that at sn~a;llseatkrictg angles the latter reduees $0 the Rutherford differ
ential cross metion for the scwtkring of dislin~ishablepwfticles,
Liond minus ~ i g nis also needed. Qf eaurcse, each process a p p s r s twice owing to
the combined wmntetry: plc"pi, p2++ p;, q + q. But now the second
k r m of (312.47) comes into play, widh
where mch current contributes two eqllia;l terms Lo a given process, correspondiag
to the symmetries expressed by p1 C' p:, q + q and p a t ) p;, q + p. The
implied %ransitionmatrix element is
290 Fields Chap. 3
Notice the simple connection between the matrix elements (312.62) and
(312.83); they are interchanged by either of the substitutions
M2 11/12
The second term, (4m2/M2) cos 8, is relatively negligible both at high energies
and at low ener$es. This provides a simple eonne~tionbetween the cross wetions
far unlike and like eharges, one thsd becomes accurate asymptotically a t bath
extremes of the mass scale and constitutes a reasonable interpolation between
these limits:
h" COS
where
A'(4 = At (X) + A$(z), (312.90)
/
A:(z) = i (d~')~''D'~(s  z')JlV(z'),
(312.91)
/
A$(z) = i (dz')f'~'+'(z  X')J2.(zf),
and then retaining those terms that have one photon and one particle emission

source along with one photon and one particle detection source. They are
w12  zf)eq2~~2(z')
/(dz) (dzl)rl( z ) [ e q 2 ~( x~ ) A + ( ~
+ eq2pA~(z)A+(x z1)eq2pA (x')l#z(z')
I
 /(dx)4l(x)2e2~i(x)A2(z)02(z), (312.92)
in which we have adopted the simplification that. expresses the use of the Lorents
gauge for the vector potential. Let us recall that
Of the two terms that do not refer to polarization vectors, one vanishes because
the source is divergenceless and the other, a gradient in coordinate space, can
be removed by a gauge transformation. Thus, it is in a special class of gauges
that we write
where
112 ikz
A$x(x) = (dud
p
ek~e ,
and they are Lorentz gauges, since
We should also nok tbft crossing symmetries exhibited by the transition matrix
element (3X2,98,99). Sinee the sign sf q is irrelevant, there is invariance,
spcseificalfy of h,,
under the substilution
for which the equdity of klplwith k2pz, and of k,pz with Iz2pf,is decisive.
Concerning tbe photons, the use of linear polarizations with Feal potari~atioa
wetars implies the transfomation
31 2 tnti;sraction ~ksleton, S~attsringcross setlens ;193
end the transition matrix element sfiwld be invariant under the interchangtt.
This induces the exchange of p and v in Vp,, which indeed 8how6 the requir&
invariance.
The tensor br,, also has the fallowing imporlant proprlies:
They bring about the neeemary con~rvationof the egwtive soure@ for the
emission of the final photon and the absorption of the incident one:
which sugplie~the unit for a, diRerential seatkring cross swtion, Then, ailnee
2eZ = ~ K O Iwe
, get directly
 m2
M %+ m2 I cos B (312.117)
M2  m2 p
l + ~ z + r ncas
~B
vvhich u w the center of mms wwthring angle evaluation for plkz. The dif"Ter
entiwl and totd crass wctions for the extreme mergetic limits are
We now return to (312.98,99) and observe that the identification of R+# with
either py/m or p$/m produces fhe simplification
One can wrify directly that the same resuft for the surnm&tioaand average over
polarisations is obtained in this way. Applied to the final pkotons, (312.121)
ghes
31 2 Interaction skeleton. Scattering czross tstlclionas 298
and, then
which gives
The cross section. vanishes if one polarization vector lie8 in. the scatkring plancl
white the other is perpendicular to the plane, When bath veetars are perpen
dicular to the scattering plane,

+ + cos 6
 m2
M2 m2
 m"
cos B
.l+
~ ~ $ m 2
Fields; Chap. 3
The geometrical facton thst appear here, cos' +B and sin' 48, are familiar ss
probabilities, for unit anwXiar momentum with magnetic quantum number +l
in tl given direetion, that a measurement m d e in a direction at the relative
angie 8 will yidd magnetic quantum numbem +l and 1, re~pectively, 'Shere
ia also a dynamical wei&ting fpbctor that is unity at low energies, M rrr m, and
suppresses helieity changes a t very high energies. The tots1 differential cross
seetion, vvhiGh is independenl of the initial heiicity, is the gum of the partial
erass geetions in (312.131) :
photo; two photon emimion sourees bgether with tmvo pafiicle deteictisa
~ ~ u r e indicah
es the inverm process, the crestion of a padieleantigartick! pair
through collision of two phobns, The h t k r , for example, is deacl.ibed by
where
Notice that the symmetry klXz k ; ~ ;is explicit, as is plp ++ p; q when one
m 8 the kinemadical reIatiom
the cross section vanishes when the two polarization vectors are st right angles.
Provided the threshold energy is exceeded by at least the factor 2'j2, M 2 > gmZ,
there is an angle at which the diEerential crass section for parallel polahga
tions vanishes,
* (312.141)
The dominant reaction thus shifts horn equal helicifies near the thre~bsldtZ)
opposite helieilies at vew high ener~es,The crossing poixlL aceurg at
31 2 Interaction skelston, Scattering cross se~tionar S
19
and again the predominant helicity relationship of the photons change8 in going
from low to high enerdes, I n the annihila.t;ionaf slow particles, M c=i gm, there
i s no relative angula~momentum for the photons to carry away and equal
bdicities for the oppositely moving photons dominates. A t very high energies
the photons sustain the mrttximum. angular mmentum along their common line
of motion. Nevertheless both: differential cross sections are isotropic, and the
tatal eross sections are
The variation of the cross section with inverse relative s p e d v, when. v f<1,
means only that the rate of the annihilation process per unit volume is pmpor
tional to the product of the beam densities. The eomputzlLion of the tatd eroes
section for reactions in which the final state contains two identical particles,
such as the B. E, phatons in this mnihilation process, needs one note of caution.
I n summing individually over the find tstaLes of both particles, which is here tlke
summation over heficities and the integration over all dirrsctions of motion,
every physically distilnet slate of the Lwo padicles is counted twice. That trap
has been avoided in stating the cross swtions of 6312.1463).
333 SPIN & PROCESSES
Let W b @ n with tbe scatkhnf~of rspin particle8 that have like charges, As
in the @pia0 discussion, the relevant part of withod reference to specific
charge v%lue~,it3
The q fabl, which is common .t;a df spixrors, It% ben, omi_l;l&. Note t2b0 that
the. id%idorder of the tatally antieom.muta%ivemure@f a e b r ~has h e n r e
amwd wiLbout the inkwention of minus signs:
where the v, sse v @eigenvectors with eigenvalue 31. When they are chosen to
be eigenve~torsof U pllp/ as well, identibing cr with the helicity, we get
where the latter is the high energy limit in which helicity becomes linked to the
eigenvalue of f n the cenbr of mass frame where X aX pa&icle energies equal
+M, consider the following high energy evaluations:
We see that (~~,,,r~r'u,,,) vanishes if ol = @a. The helicity does not change
in these products a t high energy because rar' commutes ~vithvs.
Accepting the restriction ol= a2,a: = g;, we find that the product a g
pearing in the first term of (313.7) is
which is antisymmetrical in the indices crz, G; and in g,,g;. But a word of eau
$ion about notation is cdled for here. Although we have Mrittenvoz, 8&y, one
must not forget the implicit reference to the direction of the momentum p2
slfong which the spin is projected to give the component a2,m a t we have just
referred to as antisymmetry in g 2 , a; is, properly speaking, antisymmetry in
~ ~ p 2h i . The combinittion (313.14) does not vanish when the helicities
2 and
crz and cr; are equal,.
We consider fimt the situation of equal, initial helicities. Then precisely
the combination that is evaluated by the identity (31 3.14) appears in (313.13)
and, owing to the antisymmetry just mentioned; the two terms of ($13.7) are
combined into one, with the factor
The spinm v,, and u,;are in the same relation, but ~vithrespect to the direction
af p, == pi, wrhieh is rotated by the sngb 8 about the yaxis, for example.
That is expressed by
For the situation of opposite initial helicities, the combination Lhat appears
in (3318), apart from a minus sign, is
The two contributions of (313.7) are now wsociated with different final states,
which do not interfere in dihrential cross sections, The helicity labels are,
respectively, cl = crz, c; = o; = gz and ox = a; = c%,a: = ~ 2 Alter .
naLiveIy expressed, unit angular momentum along the initial direction of motion
can lead Lo either of the magnetic quantum numbers, +l or 1, along Lhe
common direction taken by the scattered particles, Leaving aside the multiplier
of 2, the factors contributed by (813.20) in the two situations are
(y:e(l i2)isrvU+) ( v : e ( 1 / 2 ) i @ @ ~
v+) = cosZ*8,
(313.21)
a1 = G;, = Cr2:
*
(ve
(1/2)illa
%+)
* (1/2)iBo.
(Ue @v+) = sin2 48,
if one is careful in translating the heiieity specifications into spin projections
along the two felevant directions. The diRcrential eross section produced by
adding the noninterfering eontribu%ionsis
still requires equality of the helicities. We shall merely list relative corrtri
budions of the various processes tE.lat appear additively in the spinaveraged
differential cross section, They are classified by initial and fins1 magnetic
quantum numbers that refer to earresponding directions of mof ion, and aeeoPd
ing to ~vhetherbelicity trr\.nsitions have occurred,
O + 0,no:
0 + 0, yes: 1P
0 +& l , yes:
X + 1, both:
1 "4  1 , both:
For the last two processes, the constant 4 is the contribution asso~ialkedwidh
helicity changes, Adding these terms and supplying the appropriate factor gives
which interpolates between the high and low energy famh (31324) and
(313.26) respectively. While resembling the zero spin result in (312.77), it
differs in detail, except tat high energies.
3 Fletds Chap, 3
where the two equal contributions Ghat refer La a spcifie pair of appsidely
charged parLicles h w e already bwn ~0lle~Cf3d.The transition matrix eLemenf
that is defined by %hecoefficient of
Q r * 0
(U:;.; 97 Y @Pl@lP)(%p..g'I7 ~ f i ~ p ; . ;P)
4
(p1 +~ $ 1 ~
The: crossing re1a;tion btween this matrix element; and the one for like charge
n abmrption prw
scaLkring again follow fmm the unification of e ~ m i o and
in %hefield $(X), as convey4 by the formal substitutions
produee (313.34), with the additional &nu@ sign coming from the reamange
men& rrecaBaq to realize (313.33), the stand&rd mul%iplicationorder of the
sources [i' is omitted here] :
since the two soufees asaociatd with charge g must revem Iheir relative
pasition.
31 3 Spin processes 3W
Ia order ta treat both terms of (313.34) in the same way, we use the relation
of (26,134),
up* 'I = i o ~ ~ u ~ . ~ ~ (313.38)
which gives
where the now mahhing charge labels have been omitted. The effect of the
additional r5 factor is ilfustrated by
The first statement depends upon the opposite motion of the two particles in
Lhe cenkr of mass frtzme, There is an irreconcilable conflict btween the nu
merical fector, demanding the equality of the helicities @l and o:, and the
spinor product, which requims equal magnetic quantum numbers and therefore
opposite values of the helicities g2 and er;. The situation is snalogous to that
for a spin 1 padiele, where the time component of the vector field rranishea in
the rest frame.
As we recogmizr?.from (313,.i10), high energy collisions with the same initial
helicities (a2=. g;) are dominaLed by the first term of (313.34), which diRers
from its andague in like particle seateering only in sign; therefore [(31329)]
The high energy evaluation of (313.39), in the psincipal circumstsnee a2=. c~.;,
= Ibj, is
6 1
according to (313.B) and the nuU property noted in (313.40). The firs* b r m
of (323.34) contributes only to the process ~viiitbcpl = crz, and, reedling that
(PI4 p : ) g = AfZ, (313.43)
Chap. 3
Reget
The average of (313.41) and (313.44), the diEerential cross mction for un
p o l a ~ m dpadicles, is
This, Loo, is identical with the high energy spin O differential erom section. As
in (3 12.88), the simple f &etor cos4 +B relates high energy electronpositron
scatkring to high energy electronelectron scattering,
Owing to the disparity of the denorninatom in. (313.34) a t low en.er@e~,
only the first brm is significant for d4 2%and
= cos' 4s
31 3 Spin 4 procaraes %H
The relation between. the two high enerm differential erass sectiom h bcomc?
quite transparent.
When the substitutions (313.48) are introduced in (313.30), the general
dectromielectron. differential cross section for unpolarisd barns, the result i s
the eorre8pondin.g electronpositron differential eross section (the kinematics1
factor 1/M2does not take part in these transformations, of course):
Although written in a slightly different way Chat exhibits the dominant, low
energy and high energy behaviar, the fimt, square bracket, term is idenbiezlbl with
the spin 0 diEerentia1 eros9 section for scatfclering of opposite charges. The latkr
was only stated implicitly in (312.87), one half of which is the entry in the
square bracket of (313.51). The two additional terms in this equation %re
relatively negligible at both low and high energies, but they can be of quantita
tive significance at intermediate energies,
In order ta illustralcr the scatter;ing of dikrent kinds tlE charged partictes,
we shall also consider the interatetion Between at gpin O partisle and a spin g
particle, The appropriate electric current vector is the sum of tbow associated
with the two types of particles 8xf.d the interaction term in is
where all primed yuankities refer to the spin O par$icle. This will also extend to
the masses, m and mf9auf the spin i$ and spin O particle, respectively, A, simplifica
tion. can be introduced with the aid of the h t a l momentum,
P == PI 4~ "$32l3P$, (313.54)
for
?(pH df5) = 2 W   (3 13,55)
snd
u ; ~ ~ , Y ' Yf( ~p6)up,,,
~ +
= ~~;,.,Y'(YP m ) ~ ~ 2 @ 2
= 2u,*,.,(~  my0)up2.2, (3 1356)
in ~vfrlchthe last form refers La the center of mass frame. The introduction of
310 Fields
lvhere the kinematics of the situation, state that the eleetron enerw and mo
mentum magnitude, whieb remain unalkred by the collision in the eenbr of
m m frame, are
At high energies, where the: individual p%&iclemass are negXi@bXe, the electron
he:licit;y is maintained in scatlefing,
and
n2 cos2 4,
.
dc
M >> m, m': din sin4 48
When, a t low energies, the electron. spin is referred to a fix& direetion no change
in magnetic quantum number aecurs on sealeering, and
The general result, s u m m d over final spins and averaged over the initial
spins (the latter process is unneeessaq here) is
It is interesting to consider the two limiting siGuatisns in which the mass of one
particle becomes v e q l&rge,not only compared to the other m s g , but Ls the
total eaergy of the second particle, ff m' iis that l a r e m%,it is m m eon
venient to introduce
df  m' + 4 0, (3 13.63)
where the electron mew in the center of rnam fiame i e indistinguiehable from
the enerw in the coordinate system where the h e ~ v ypadicle remaiiols zr;t re&.
The limiting process givm
spin 9:
The analogous limit in whieh it is the spin .5; particle Chat has become v e v heavy
has the same form as (3X3.M), kvithout the trigonometric faetor in the numer
ator :
&a
spin 0:
fbo now superfZuous prime on m has been. omitted. The two diflerential cross
sections have been identified with the moving particle, the very massive one
acting only a%a stationary charge. The possibility of applying t.t, gource dt3;scrip
tion to this circumstance will be developed in the next section.
But first let us examine some processes involving photons and spin & pa&i
des, as eonLained in the expregsion (312.a) for Wa2. Electronpositron anni
hilation into ttwa photons is described by
(dz)(dz')~., I ( X ) G+(z  zr)eq"/A1(z')J.z (X'),
(z)roeqr~ (313.66)
In the center of mass flrarne the energies of all electrons and photons equal
*M,and
2p2kl = *Jf[dl  ( A f 2  4m2)'12 cos 81,
(313.70)
2p2k; = $fii[Jf + (MZ  4m2)'iZcos 61.
Particularly simple is the annihilation of sloiflymoving particles, df c=t 2m,
for ~vhieh(313.69) &comes
\%herethe unneeded causal Xabels have been dropped. Only terms with an even
number of Ys fachrs survive here, and tle have used the fact that e X ef must
be directed along k. The equality of the helieities staks that the two magnetic
quantum numbers are opposite, in the antisymmetrical way impIied by Lhe
faetor G'. Accordingly, only the singlet state of zero htef spin can, undergo two
photon annihilation, for slo\vly moving particles, The corresponding aero sngutar
momentum state of the two photons, a linear combination of the two equai
helicity states, is identified by the perpendicular polarization vectors of the
%\Wphotons, When we recall that
the differential cross section per unit solid angle for a given pair of perpendicu
larly $arized photuns, with the particles in the singlet state, is oMained as
(uz/m (l/v). To compute the total annihilation cross section for unpolarized
particles we must supply the follo~vingadditional factors: 2, for the number of
polarizations available to one photon, the other polarizatisn b i n $ fixed by the
requirement of perpendicularity; 4, the Aatistical tveigbf of the singlet sts;te;
2w, the total solid angle aecessibte to either photon \vi%houtduplication of the
fins1 states. This gives
tvl~iclrhave the effect of rnisirkg and Iotvering particle magnetic quantum num
314 Fields Chap. 3
bers by unity;
*(g. + i.,)a = v+, v:*(@,  i@@,
= V;,
(31 3.81)
4 + =, v:+(@, + iq,) = v*,
all other combinations being zero. Thus wet can ewily work out the values af
(31 3.78) for any choice of photon helicities. With X = Xt = +l, for example,
tvs get
t,r;Izile null results are obtained far equal helicities, h = X L & l . As in the
spin 0 discu~~ion, high energy annihilation photons carry only the mmimum
angular momentum, & 2, along their line of mation. Again there i s an elementary
interpretation for the geometrical. factors of (3f3.82,&3) which appear ixr
transition probabilities ns sin2 B cos4 48 and sin2 B sin4 +B. These are the spin 2
probabilities that connect rnagneti~quantum number +l in a given directioxl
wilh magnetic quantum numbers +2 and  2 in another direetion at, the relative
angle 8. The transition amplitude factor i/sin2 B also appears for spin 0, in
conjunction with the geometrical factor sin2 B, \vhich produces an isotropic
differential cross seetion. No\\, hoi~ever,the spin averaged differential cross
section is
making explicit the origin of Lht: angle reestriction. (313."1"1) If lsauld m m thaL
one had only to replwe (313.M) 1~ifE.1
and this is correct. But there is more here than mels the eye.
When the improvemends of (gL3.86)are: introduced in the denominators of
(313.78) and thereby in (313.82,83), the resal$ is
and its addition to (313.90) effeekivefy produces (313.88). Node th8L the
differential cross section for forkvard and baekrvard emission comes entirely
from this last process, The value of that cross section per unit solid angle,
$(a2/m2),differs only by a factor of 2 from the result of the low energy calcula
tion, tvhen. the kinernatical factor 2/v is replaced by its high energy value of
unity [Eq, (31 3,73)].
The general evaluation of (313.69) involves little that has not, been en
countered af;high energies, apart from the frevenl appearance of the parameter
The helicity eonstmction of the spinors in (313.69), dogether with the factor
3m/ez, gives it as
The only transition not considered in the high energy discussion is tbe one with
zero initial magnetic quantum and fins1 magnetic quantum number of &2. 11;
has the anticipated geometrical factor, sin' 8. The immediately obtained form
of the differential cross section for unpolarized particles is
Explicit here is the contribution of the only pfoeesses that oecur at sin 8 = 0,
thoslc with zero initial and find magnetie quantum numbers:
2 I a2
(sin B = 0 ) =   (I f
4 rn2~ ~~h
They are also the snIy ones that survive at low energ;)r. It is the funetion 1+
that produces the variation by a factor of 2 in proceeding from Iou. energy
( K = 0) to high energy (K = 1). Another presentation of the differential cross
section is
The laat term can be neglected Ett high energi:es, a d we recover (313.88). The
total annihilation cross section is evaluated as
which reduces to the limiting forms (313.74) and (313.89) in the appropriate
circumtanw.
Apart frclm changing the kinemaka1 faetor K'"" inta K, the same digerential
cross section (313.101) rtpplies to the inverse process of electrcmpositron
creation in the collision of two photons, Factor8 associated with the summaGiarr
M8 Fields Chap. 3
over final potariaations md the averaging af initial onw do not change ~inee
both particles, electron and photon, have two possible po1aril;stions. But there
is a dtifference in the evrtfuation af the tokal er0863 metioa, far electron and
positron are distinct particles and the full solid angle of 43r applies. This gives
the tab1 pair ere&ion cross scletion
If we apply them to the first version of (313.84), we get (the kinematics1 factor
l / M Z is not involved)
The crossing substitution on spinors, a,, +B u: _,, which is effectively produced
by the aegative complex conjtxgsltc?of (313.1 l@),
gives
whereas the formal repfacement of p with p ia (313.110) pro due^ %heneg*
five af this rwdL. We did not eneounhr this phenomenon in retbting elmtron
electron sctatb~ngto electronpositron scattering since two spin. # ~ubstitutiom
are used there.
The high enerm limit of the efttctronphoton diEerenti8l crow sc?ction. far
unp1sriz;ed particle8 is, therefore,
factor 1 / ainee
~ naw inifial and final particles are identical. Thia give8 directly
The Imf tQ?rmdoes not cantribute EtL hi& enerdcts, where (313, P 14) is reg&ined,
nor a%low energies where fhe Thornson cross ~ ) e e t i emerges,
~n
QP
which does indwd agree with (313.65), apart from the us@of m the charge
af the stationary scatterer.
+
The similar consideration for spin begins with
wbich is expressed by
1,,u,,) = 2m(dw,, d ~ , , ) " ~
where %hefactor slin f i e second entry reproduces the algebraic s i p s that are
r?xhibi;t;ed in (313.17). For either ehoice of a2 the summation over (zl dvet3;
the differential eraas section
Only the field $ ( X ) refers to propagating particles and thert3fore Wgz dso
describes an electron scatkring process, as do all the &her Wz,, Thus, the
expansion in powers of the static potential A@is no longer a classification into
sue~essivelymore complicated prooesses, but represents successive latpprlroxirn*
tions ta the complete treatment of the rnation of the padiele in the Coulomb
field of the point source. The inkraction slreletan here acquires more substance,
and thereby indicates one aspect of the dynamical scheme that is generally
lacking a t the first dynamical level, namely, the? possibility for unlimited repeti
tion of a particular interaction mechanism.
Sinee all po\vers of A' contribute to the scattering proeess one should like
t o avoid that power series expansion and work direetly with the appropriate
, or G$(x, 2'). Unfortunately, the ability to solve
Green's function, ~ $ ( z X')
the Green" function equations in a reasonably closed form is restrickd to the
nonrelativistic limit, in the physically interesting situation of a point source and
the Coulomb potential. The latter has a simple connection with the diflerential
equation (311.36) for A$, whieh here assumes the threedimensional form
when one introduces the time Fouricr transform in this time translationally
invariant situation:
The fmfar Zip implies that the comec%iondiminishes the cross smtion for pa&i~lm
of like eharge and in~remwit for the serttbfing of agpossite charge#. f n dealing
only once with the egmt of the quadratic inkr~etianbrm and ignoring %he
phase f a e m tbti reprment the consquenee of r e p a b d linear interwtisns, we
have obtained only the first term of a rnultipli~ativepower eEieb4 in Zaq. Gs
thi~3first tern displetys, there must a l ~ be
o at leaat one faetor of %hepaft;icfe @p&,
&nmthe corrmtion i8 8 dfttivi~lrtiephenomenon.
T b comegpanding discussion of spin. scatteriag proc&s mmewhat mom
indhctly since both the deaird relettivisfie correction; and the repetition of the
effectiva nonrelativistic inbraetion am combined in TTzzl Eq. (314.15). Taken
as i t ~ & @ n%be
d ~Xathr
, implies the following %r%mition matfix modification,
where
with
Before diseuming this integd, let us obsente that, when hefieity staks are used,
which meam that the earreetion is confixlied to tramitions in, whieh the helicity
does not change. NOW the last b r m of (314.311, with %heeomfsnt, fachr
+(pI  p2)%,can be identified ae altering the phase associated with helicity
presehng trawitions. Put another w%y, this term is ima&n%qand, to %he
accuracy with which we are wol;king, it does not inkrfere Bvith the prheipal
eont~butisiantto the scattering matrix taad can ne:glwbd, &long with the
imrtginav parts of the other term, The remaining real hrms of X, the only
significant ones for the cross section modification. we
and the two equal inkgals illu8trated by
where the return t;o eoardixlah space fiss b e n advsntagww, Also utilizt=d is
the thredime?r;tsian.almomenturn i n b ~ a l
X ed((p@j2m71j9zt
(dp) * (314.35)
) +
( 2 ~ p2 ~ mn  (p')a  is 444
The mdifiesltim in the transition amplitude for scattering without helicity
change isJ conveyed by
1/2
cos 98 1
sin *@(l sin l@)
4
ah2 *8 sxn2 46 cos
+
where f (al nZ) and f (Bl  nz) are perpendicular vecton of length cos f B
and sin .$8, reapeetively, Basing a choice of spfie~calcoordinaLes on .them @vea
1 cos 98 (ess *B  p)
2;; dp (1  F eos 4@)z  (1  sin%)Bcos2 p
ge cos +e  p  I
dp 1  p cos #B  21log  .
sin 88
(314.43)
(IPI"IPITIIP1'2'1) = 2m(d@~l
d@P*)fi2 MU.,, (314.45)
where
M = = f+2'go"nl Xng
and
The computation of the btttl differential cross srtction for an arbitrzlry idtid
spin invofve~
Accordingly, if f/g ifs a conrplm number, there ia an explicit dependan@@
on the
initial spin, proGdd it has a nonvanhhing expectation value in the dirwtion
pwn&c61ar to the plane of scattering. A state of definite helicity dws not
have that properLy; it require8 a linear combination of the helicity stabs,
b i p r o c a l to the dependence of the dtiEe:rential eram section on the i ~ t i a l
pin Is the appearance of plssizatian in the parfieleg far an inithlly
unplsriaed beam. At a given scattering angle, the average final spin is
The obmrvationatt s i p that neither p, nor pb is zero thus eomm from a de
pendenee of the final inbn~ityupon the mlative orientrttion of the two aatfefing
plsnes. In pa&iculsr, if thf? two phnm are the same geometrically but deflectiaw
in opgosik seases am cornpar&, .= &v,, the ratio of the inbwity for &flee
%ion8in the 8atme seme to tlaat for the opposilti! s e w is
This it3 r &tan one when the individad 8eatkfing a & ~are iiientjeal,
p, == pb. The preference for sucemive deflection in the same m m will be
b i d with any choice of individual seatte~ngaaglm if, W in the pment
di~ussion,the pohfisation paramettt3.r hadJ a definife! sign at aU angfes:
33 4 Ssurees as scatterers 329
where A$(%)indicates the vector potential associRted with the chwge Ze. W~iing
the form of the latter that is stated in (314.2), the transition matrix element
appears as
where
and npis the unit timelike vector that has the single component no = 1 in the
rest frame of the charge 2%. Enerw conservation takes the form
First let us observe the simplifieations that appear far soft photons, where
the photon momentum k is negligible compared to p1  p2 and = P.:
This @ves
whieh is the trntnsitioo matrix element for scattering in the Coulomb Eidd,
multiptied by the probabiliLy amplitude for photon emission by the source that
represents the instantaneous trangition of the eharge ep from velocity p z l m to
velocity pl/m. This conforms vvith expetation. We should remark, h o r n @ ,
fsr future reference, that the connplek negbet of the pboton meehaaied proper
536 Fields Chap. 3
ties a t sufficiently low frequencies is justified for finite particle deflection angles,
but require8 m r e careful eonrsideration when the deflecdian angle is very s m d .
Glomly rebted fo the soft photon situation, but &skinet fram it, is the low
enerw or nonrelativistic Iimit. Here, the photon momentum is negligible but
any frastion of the initial kimtie enera can be r a d i a w as the photon energy
and the fufther integration over alt pa.pticlc?se&tering angles gves a cross ection
fsr the photon energy distribution:
It is also int;eratiag to consider the digerential emss per unit solid angle dQ
l;fitzL is i n h g r a t d over JI photon energies, from the minimum debetable erreray
&Einto the maximum energy aet by the initial kinetic energy T = pg/2m. This is
 (n  9)tan 98 
although wc? have not troubled to iatroduee the invariant equivalent of the
initial pa&icle momentum. The fourclirnensionaI delta function slaks that
382 Fields Chap, 3
and, in the rest frame of ?P,which is the coordinate sysCern of physical inbrest,
b(nkz) &(P! 4 k!  p:), +
k: = (PI kl  p,)2, (314.76)
which regsin~(314.72). But the expression (G14.74) has a sugestive eharaete?r,
for process= rmenbling psrtieleptrobn 8esthring are being considered. Of
course, the incident photons are virtual, since kg > 0. Nevertheleas, this point
of view haa prmlical advantwgw a t high ener@es. Viewed in a wifable co
ar&natcr;system, a, major fra,cdion of the digerential cross section can h evaluaM
in terms of the propedies of r e d pholons.
fn the physical coofdinak system, the incidcnt pa&iele is considerd to
move along the %axiswith velocity et ru 41, so that
How think of the coordinate system in. which the particle is at rest inifiablly and
the charge 2% moves dong the zaxis with. vdocity D. In &is frame the vector
n@has the components [(O, z,y, z)]
The requirement nk2 = 0,which asserts tbe static nature of the field in the
pbysicd, or &attached, wordinate syslern, becomes in the particle rest frame
and therefore
kg = k$ + kgl[(l  v2)/u2],
where
kg = kK + k:,.
Thus, in circumstances for which
and k i is sufficiently small, it would seem that the virtual photons dould be
approxirnaM by red ones.
There is one app~retltdifficulty, hawever, Playing the role of pol8riaation
rrecbr for the incident photon, is the vecbr np,which is indeed such that nlcz = 0.
But we should etxgecb that the pola~zl~fion vmtor of a red photon is, or can be
cho~en,without time component or component along the propagation direction,
which i s here the negative zaxis. This suggesGs performing whrat should be a
gauge tran~formation:
n' + nC  (?/kg)%, (314.83)
w h i ~ his comtrucbd bhave vanishing time component in the pa&iele rest frame.
The z or loxl@tudinal component of the new vector is then
and, provided
r k ~ l k>
;> I/T,
the transformed veetor w i U be predominrtntiy the multiple ?kT/k; of the
tramverse; unit vector kT/kr, which acts as the ineidrtnt phokon p o h r l h o n
vector, But all this is contingent on. the magnitude of the addidiond term intro
duced by the transformation (314.83)1 which is p r o p o r t i d to
Now,
k z ~ g= kip,  *ki, kzpl = klp2 + +ki (314.87)
and therefore
whieh indicates that the substitution of real photons for the viPtu~t1pElotOns will
be justified if suitable upper limits are placed on kg 2;: k:. A suggestion of the
magnitude of this upper limit is obtained by comparing, in $he gauge ef, &,pz = 0,
the pa&icle r e ~ frame
t values
and
namely
k~ < m. (314.91)
We shag eonfine the discurnion to the diEerential crag@section that $ive8
the mew spectrum of the d t L t n l photons in the Z eoordinete system. Since
we are ROW f i d y establi~hdin two &Rerent eoodinate systems moving reh
tive to eaeh other at pmctieally the spectd of light, a few notational distinctions
are needed. The Z h m e photon e n e r a will be denoted by
K = nkl= r(k! + vkl,) r: rk!(l  eos 8), (314.92)
where B is tbe photon scattering mgfe in the paPticfe frame, The kinematics of
tbe phaton s c a t k r i q process in that refewnce frame, as derivd from
0 = (p, + kz  k112 + 'm = 2m(k$  k:) f 2kyk$(1  cos 8), (314.93)
334 Fialds Chap. 3
is expressed by
k? = k: (314.94)
1 + (k$/m)(l  cos B)
Some derived relations involving K and the Z frame particle energies
E2 = rm, E, = E2  K (314.95)
are
K= (k!/m)(l  cos B)
E2 +
1 (k:/m)(l  cos B)
% =k! g P
E1
(314.96)
and
The latter shows that the incident photon energies k: that can produce a scat
tered photon of energy K (two different coordinate systems are used here) will
be restricted by
where the factor in the denominator arises from division by the photon flux
multiplied by the particle density, 2k: dok22mdo,,. The polarization summation
and average is
which also follows from (312.124), with n = p2/m. The final momentum inte
gration can be performed with the aid of the kinematical relation
and
or, with
(dlez) = r dk$ dk2,dki,
This expres~ioncon$ains the only reference ta the direction of Lhe emitttld pholon,
md we shall integrate over all solid angles. Removing the factor l / K Z ,that
iategal is
where R is now the uniL propagation vwtor of $he photon, and high enerw, @oft
photon simplificatiom have not yet been irtfrducd. We first obgeme t h ~ t
Lvhich still needs to be integrated over the deflection angle 8, But now we must
recall the Marningthat the soft photon sirnplifications need to be qualified for
very small angles. I n contrztst to the singularity of (s14.118) at fl = 0, the
+
minimum value attained by (pl k l  p2)2, ~vhichoccurs for scattering and
emission in the fortvard directiorr, is
we begin the integration at a conservative upper limit to the real photon dis
n , << m, and thus
c u ~ ~ i okmaiX
Ymin r== (kmax12m) K< 1.
This gives
(314.124)
where the y integral simplifies to
I
dv(l + v2) log f. X

u2
and
16 z2a3dK
 (314. f 26)
d@ m
3 m2 K
virtual
Whexl the real photon contribution (314.1 12) is considered under soft pho
ton conditions, E l . El2, the addigion of the two part^ precisely cancels
fog (mp,,,) +
H, and the inference is that, $enemlly,
The virtual photon contribution to the differential cmss section that is produced
by (314.72,73) is
~."..%.=
virtual r2 E2 K
(S14.f 32)
U B ~ ebpprop~~k
R~ variable tra~glalions,we hwe
which doe8 inded differ from (314.124) only by the faehr E1/g2that i~ nededt.
Co combine properly with the general real photon contribution (314.112) and
prduce (314.127).
To give sn analogous discussion for spin 1 psrtioles requires, first, the explicit
f o m of the electronphoton diRerentital cross wction in the r a t frame of the
incident efeetron, That is waitstble Lo us through transformafion of (313.1 l?),
%hee n k r of nnw e r a s section, but, there is some i n k r s t in a direct derivation.
The transition matrix element is
whieh urns purely spatial polarization vectors and a simplified aodation. The
m a t ~ xfaetor in square brackerts reduces to
where the latter exploits the fact that uz i s an eigenvector of ?%with eigenvalue
41, and introduces the aotafion nl, z far the unit propagation vwfmirs of the
photons. C o n ~ i d e e ~real
g polarization vecGors for simplicitcy, the tr%nsition
nnad~xelement becomes
(d%, d o k , do,,dwt,)1122e2u:[el + e2 + +?,(g e p nl X e2
X el))uz. (S14.139)
+a*e2aeal
If the term and the spinor8 are omitbd we ge6 the comespondirtg spin O
expremion. The summation of Lhe tr%nsi.tionprobability over final spins can
be pe$armed with the aid of (313.11Q), giving the pino or faehr
The matrix prduet is reducd by omitting a11 krms that eontain a rli fa~tOr,
since uz is a eigenvector, or s a faetor, the latter expressing the averaging
over aft initial spins, A quite sho& edcufation then gives the foffo~4ngfar
X [l  cos B(el = e2)' + el e2n1°ezag etg  el X 
ez alet X ozJ,
(314.142)
where
II~ = cos 8, (S14.143)
The appamnt dependence of the ~ m n d
term on the pa)$sri%stionvectors dis
appwm on. invoking the identity
C@Z X X h3 * E@l ez) m21
= (et X e2)%
cos @  el X e2 * nlel X et nz
= el . e2n1* e2aS elf (&l4.144)
and we g@$
replacing (et e2)' in the spin O cross section. When summed and averaged over
photon polarizstions the differential cmss section that appears in plme of
(Sli4.103)3s
For the purpom o f evaluating the pbobn ennission emss section, this is
wdm

log 2BiEt
mK 
The virtual photon contribution i n h r r d frbm fi2hsts Lhe fobwing high
enerw appearance :
whieh is to h aurnmed over the photon polakaation and the find electran spin,
and averaged over the initid spin. As in the dimurnion of pfxotonelechn
s~afhringtat small angles, transitions with electron heliciw ehsngw %res i p
fiea ant, The cafeulatian can. h prformed dvtitnbgeau~lyby methods tha$
have dresldy k n illustraled, using photon helicify states and the photon
e ~ s s i o ndirection for reference, and expreming the efeetmn helieity states wilh
fhe aid of suitable rota;tion mal;rices. We shall only give the re~u1GsBere, which
are classified with respect to helieity change:
For soft photons, helicity ehsnges are fehtively negligible and the spin O &me
tare is reproduced. The sXighLIy different integral assacigM wi.t;h KeXieity
ebanges is
1
clu
da
virtual, no
virtual, yea
which add La
&
virtual
This virtual phohn part and the real fiaton contribution of (314.148) cambine:
ta give the final high ernerw f a m of the diRerentia1 cross =%ion for phobn
r an elecfran defleetd in a Coulomb field,
e ~ m i a r by
The proeegs that converts a pfrofon into a pair af oppositely charged par
tiele~,in the neighbarhood of a tafstianary charge, is m l ~ by a croming
transfomations to the reiaction jurzlt eonsiderd. T h m %ramforrnatiorrsare
where the second high eneru version also emphmizes that we arc?inlerf;sM only
in the energy specification of the particles. Under fhe croming transformation,
the kinematieal factor do,, dok,h,, beoomes dw,, bp; dwk,. The differential
er088 =etion refeming to an inciaent photon beant woufd require division by
2K dwr,, K = kg, and thus
ap8l.t from the spurious minus sign tkat accompanies this formsl substilution,
with spin 8 particles. When cross sectians involving summatioas over final
helieitiea and averages over initial ones are used, appropriate correc%ionsmust
be made far the different weight faclom. With spin 3 partieia this if9 '1;18f re
quired, in thew reactions involving one initid pa&iclc?:and fwo final particles,
ainee b t h elwtron and photon hsve t ~ r ohelicity staks. For spin O padiolm,
howwer, the photon emission crass section, summed aver the phobn p~1ariza
Lion, contains an additionztl faetor of 2 relative ta the photon sbmq%ianer088
section, where photon polarisations are averaged. The implied pair produetion
cross sections are
spin 6: cFo =  8 z ~ ~ Q E ~ E ~
3 m2 K 2 K (314.159)
1abls are omit$&, tomther with charge indices, since
the paditioning of the phabn enere,
K =E + Eft (314. XW)
doe8 not de*nd u p n the ~peifiecharge wimmentts.
In u8ing exbndd photon. sources 4x1 reprmnt heavy eh&& padielw, tbe
where
Notice that the joint sign reversal of p" and p' interohanges the forms of the
two differential op.etra;tors. Hence the eigexlfumtions can be so chomrr that
(315.7)
f n the &Beme of the staLie source, this properQ is obeyed by the Imotvn eigen
funcfGions mmciatd with small momentum cells,
A representation of the Green's function that ia valid near any part of the
physical enerw speclrum, or its negative, is given by
Wheu the eigexrfuactioxrs (315.8) are inserted in (315,12), the 'Emojvn form of
the free particle propagation function is recovered. If \re nolv allow to
assume both positive and negative values, the Green" funetion can be premnted
more compactly as
~vl~ere
( f ) signals the extended meaning of and
We urc intcjtrested, in this section, only in tltst podion of the energy sptlcLrum
which is inaceemible to a free particle: < m, Such s$atf?scan exist, localized
in the neighborhood of the source, if &hereis force of attraction btween the
particle and source, of sufficient strength and range, Tn the familittr situation
of the longrang& Coulomb interitctiotr between oppo~ihlysigned charges, no
minimum strength is required, %ndan unIimidd number of sueh bound s t ~ k s
exists. These are the Hparticles, Wllat are the emissiorr arrd sbsoqtion sources
for Hparticles?
The insertiorr of the Green's funetion (315.18) into the souree coupling t e r n
are sources associated rvith the particular Hparticle label4 by pat, p', with of
appearing as an %dditionalindex snalogous Lo pin. Thsf the= sourcw mfer
only to time conveys the immobjlity of the very massiw Wparticles, The
repeated operatjon of these sources will inject any number of parLIeles info
bound statea. 8ince no a~countis being 8ven of the inter&cfctionsamong the
particles, we ~haffbe concerned only with the propertie8 of rr single particle,
bound to the murect anid forming an Hpadiele. Nti3verthelesa, id i s desirable to
verify that probabili6y requiremenk are satisfied in the dynsmieally simpfifid
manypa&icle situation.
The usual consideration of tc causal arrangement of emission and absorptioxl
source8 leads h
and the eausaf arrangement restricts the energy summation in (315.23) to the
physical, positive values. The mulLiparLicle Aabs produced by the caueat
analysis of the vacuum amplitude have the usual canstmction in krms of gauree
producls, and probability normalilration implies that
1
~ ~ o e =(  ~~  ~~ " l )( = (315.37)
 ~ ~ )
p@'(1  ie)  *
The completeness of the multiparticle states, which have the usual source
product representation, implies that (p0' > 0)
gives
Now, let the static source that represents a heavy charged particle be
supplemented by a simple photon source. The terms in FV that contain one such
3M) Fields Chap. 3
The static source defines a coordinate syskm in which nc"can be chown to have
only s Lime component. Then fc"(k) h= only spatial components, \vhich are
proportional to the vector k, and the gduge condition reads:
tile scalar potential A0(z) in the rdiation gauge i s necessarily given by the
instantaneous Coulomb potential of the charge distributiort,
But the coxlverse is not true. If it is required that AQ(z)shell be the instan
taneous Coulomb potential, presumably the intent of a Coulomb gauge, the
inference is that the time derivative of "C" A(z) must vanish, No restriction is
thereby placed on any static compnent of the veetor potential, A(z).
I t is $he radiation gauge la, ~vhicfithe sta;tie potential AP(x) refer^, The
vector potential A(x) can be used to represent the field of nuclear magnelic
dipale moments, leading to the hyperfine structure af Hprtrticles. Xn the
follotving, however, attention will be confined to the static chmge density and
its scalar potential. This avoids notatiorlial conflicts with the pokntials that
are associated with the aimple photori sources. The latkr are only needed far
from %heemission or detection sources, There, they reduce to the vechr poten
ia the transverse or divergenceless part of J(z) and, indad,
and so forth.
The particle field +(X) is related to Hparticle sources by
At a time tfr& is eausally inbrmdiab htween the actions of emission md
absorption sources, this becomes (p" > 0)
(&XS*M)
The transition probability per unit time is given by
After integration over the sharply selected photon energy, this can be expressed
as the Einstein BeoeEeient, which relates the transition probability per
unit time to the photon energy density per unit angular frequency range:
k0(2k0 dwr/dka). Averaging over the incident photon polarization and direction
of motion @yes the nonrefativisticexpression
is a reminder that, apart from the kinmadittal factors involved in the definitions,
the transition probabilities for single photon emission and absorption, are inkr
changed by the photon crossing transformation, k p 4 kp, The emission and
tllbsorption rates are equal when the definitions refer to single photons of definite
polarization. And, as we learned long ago in the simpler coxrtexl of a probe
source, if n photans of the appropriate frequency are present initially, the
+
absorption rate is multiplied by n and the emission rate by n 1. The latter
represents the combination of stimulated and spontaneous ernimion processes.
The analogous discussion for spin $ particles begins with the Greenpg
function difierential equation
and one mcopiaes the orbital contribution to the magnetic moment, wbiGh
ad& Ga the @pinmagnetic mantent in the mannrsr rc:presenM by g = 2. If we
neglecl thia mametic dipale radiatim, and the rdated eXeet~equadwpofe
rdiation, which is tke other b r m on the righthand side aE (315.83), them
rmains only the rd4ttion of the electric dipXe moment, eq'x. This i s radiation
associded vvith aceebmbd charges, and is indepndent of spin. Inded, witEr
the sirnpiifieations irnpIjed by retaining only the firf;t two te
and replacing spin 4 eigenfunctions by nonrelativistic Brave functions, in &c
cordarrce with the normalization (315.33), we have
This coincides with the correspondixlg spin 0 limit, (315'68). A similar con
sideration, relai.Led by the photon crossing transformation, applies to the tab
ssrptian process,
We shdl discuss orlily in the context of photon scatbring. Using the
spin 0 structure (315,6t), we insert the causal field decomposition
i112~12&+(~,
xl,  kg)p;e"l "'j~,o~~,~~(x'f
(315.88)
The A+ symbols are the transform Green's function A+(x, X', p'), with 'p
assig~ledone of the values
p"+k~=p"'+k~, po'k$=p'"k~. (315.89)
Far simplicity we consider only the namrelativistic limit, where the photon
momenta are neglected, as are the terms in &+(X, X', )'p having denominators
p'f $ p' N 2m, in contrast with the denominrttors''p 'p = E'  E. This
gives (using a slightly simplified notation)
3W Fields Ghsp. 3
from .inrhich less spwific erass sections are obtained by summing over aband
8veraGng over a''? by summing over XI and avr?r&ng over X2, and by i n b u ~ t i n g
over all solid angles,
At ghobn enerrgies %hatare Xsrp in comparison with Hpa~iclt,binding
~ , the 1mt tern of (315.91) survive^ and, with a' = a", one recog
e n e r ~ e only
nizehs the Thornmn cross section, which describe8 the scaftr;et;riagof (on a, rek
L i ~ t i eseale) low enerw photons by a free particle of charge rf=eand mass m,
Another limiting conneckion with Thom~onscattering should appear a t very
low frequencie~,smsll in eompaeson with the mergy inkrvals beI;wwadigerenf
Hgrarticlea. m e n a, photon of essentially zero frequency is sca,&&redelmtically
by a, part4eular Bpadicle, the dynarnid connectians \;vith other Wpasticleg
are not in evidmee, and the seatlering shoutd be descr;ibetd: by the Thornson
fornuLa appropriak to the Hpar$icXc?icharge and masts. Sinee the latter hafj
been ideafi~edas infinite, the elsstic scattering erass ection should vani~has
k@ + 0. This implies a set of relations, known as sum rules, which can be
va~ouslygreesented. The immediate form implied by (315.91) is
(3 f 5.92)
Here is another:
(315.95)
The 1st version shows the mathematical origin of the Bum rules; they are
matrix elements of the cammutation relation
The elementary ori@n of the sum rules does not detract fiorn their gig
nificanee its conditions of consistency for the phenomenological particle des~rip
%ionof eomposik systems. That is emphasized by removing the idealization
of infinite mass to obtain the necessary result involving the charge (Z"  I)@
and mass M of the Hparticle, viewed as a, composite of the two particles with
charge and mass assignment8 $ivm by e, m (electron) and Ze, &g  m (nu
cleus). Tfre gcattering amplitude fhat appears in (S15.91) describes the pm
e e s ~ in
e ~which the electron absorbs the incident photon and emits the seatbred
photcllm. To this will now be added the reprwentatian of the processes in which
the nucleus alone perEorms these acts, and of those in which both partieles are
involved. Altfiough we have not developed the relevant general famalism, the
necessary modifications here are quih clear. The ma;trix product terms of
(315.91) describe two successive interactions with the electric current, to
which both particles now make conlributians:
where
I n carrying out the reduction of Ghe matrix product, the relation betuveen
relative momentum and relative velocity is now given by the reduced mass,
m(M  m ) / J f . Removing the factor of e2, we find that what replaces the
amplitude of (315.91) for s, realistic Hparticle as ka t O is, apart from the
gola~zittionvector product,
Here, ed is the internal eleetric dipole moment of the system in which df
position ve~torsrefer do the cenhr of mass veetor
If is the amplitudes for individual scaLLhring by the two particles that are
add&, and not their cross sections, since this simplified treatment neglects the
photon, monnenbrn and thereby amumes that the photon wavelenglh is large
eompard t;o the particle separation. That restriction, is easiXy removed by
in~ertingthe relative phase factore and, with increasing frequency, the coherence
between the two scattering amplitudes disappeam,
It is also possible to derive (315.101) directly, by using s digerent gauge
whieh is specifiedty adapted to the long wavelength regime.. If the electric field
of the photons is homogeneous over the inkrior of the Hpahielc! and procems
involving the magnetic field are negligible, s suitable choice of potentiwfs is
A'(X,Z@)= x*E(R,zO), A(x,zO)=O, (315.2M)
where
E(R, zO)= ( d ~ "2ik'[ekh
i) exp(& R ik'z')i~~~~
kX
 i~:t&e:&exp(ik * R + ikOzOf]. (%I 5. 107)
The seafar wkndial ~ouplesto the c h 8 ~ density,
~e
The reference to the rest frame, the state of zero momentum, redurn8 %histO
Again, we only consider the nonrelativistic limit. But this time the k r m in
the GreenP8funetion with denominabtors +
p@ = 2m cannot be neglected.
We shrall need the explicit sbtemenl of completeness for the eigenfunetiam. It
em be: inferred by eamparilrg Lhe high enerp;y limit of the Gseen's funetion
@+(X, X', P O ) ,
Lim (rap'~+(x,X', = 6(x  X'), (315.113)
pOtoc
3 fietds Chap. 3
vides our first encounter with unsthle particles. The distinction between.
stable and unstable particlm is a matter of time sede. Within suitably restrickd
time intervab, the mechanism producing particle instability is ineffective and
the stable partiele description is applicable, provided, of course, that enough
time is still available for the accurate dekrmination of the characteristic particle
properties. Ot;herwige, no singleparticle description is mestningfut. The H
pa&icles supply examples of sLPLble and unstable parlicles, The particle of
minimum enerw is st&le. Those of greater energy are capable of emitting one
or more photons, thereby transforming themselves eventually into the tllbsolukly
stable variety. The initial description of HpaPficles wunned their stability,
and i s applicable over a rerstricM time scale, The descrip%ionis false for very
long time inhrvals because it mserts that weak Hparticle sources emit and
absorb single Hparticles that propagate unaltered between these acts, But,
given enough time, an unstable Hparticle will transform itself into another
Hparticle and a photon. These two particles are also c%pableof recombining
to form a single Hparticle, Thus, a description of the coupFing b&ween weak,
causally arranged Hparticle sources that does not refer to the real exisknee af
two or more particles propagating between them is physically incompbte. I t is
the inclusion of such multipart;icXe excbantgeis between sources and the con
sideration of some of the physical consctquenees that wit1 occupy us in this
section.
The first task is the identification of effective sources for the emission and
the absorption of an Hparticle and a photon, This is analogous to the discussion
of Section 31 1. The description of s noninteracting photon and Hpadicle ia
given by (using the apin 0 example)
Comparison with the vacuum amplitude term describing single photon emission,
as contained in (315.W), gives
2== 8 ( 
~ (316.2)
eff.
and the same form applies, with appropriate causal labels, Co the a b s o ~ t i o nof $I
photon and an Eparticle. Since this eRective photon souree is meant Lo bg/
multiplied by a vector potential in the radiation gauge, its appearance is simpli
fied in comparison with the structure of (31 1.15). On replacing J";Zt ) K z( X )
and J2r(Et)K2(~" iin (S16.1) by these egective combinations, we obtain a
desc~ptionof the causal coupling between Hparticle ssourcw that is merfiabd
by the exchange of an Hparticle and a photon, under physical conditiom of
noninteraction. But, to be consistent with the use of the radiation gauge, we
must first ehange the ten~orthat eouptes the vechr photon soumes, in relation
ta the exchange of a gart;icular photon,
which extracts the tramverse parts of the mulfiplying currents. Thus, the
coupling krnn in the vacuum amplitude is
where, as indicated, only positive values of''P appear. The resulting form of the
vacuum amplitude coupling term is
with
where
5,,,,., pa#.u..(~O )'2 = &porraFr,  z').
pofar(~o' (316.11)
The emission and absorption sources of the vacuum amplitude term (316.8)
occur in the combination
The effective limitations on P' must also be removed if this propagation function
is to be meaningful for arbitrary sources. The P' integral can be defined to
simulate the initial consideration of extended sources, by excludi~ljlgneighbor
hoods of the values p'' and p"'. If this is done symmetrically about these
values and then the limit of arbitrarily small excluded in&xlr8!% considered,
with a speeial provision for''p = p'",
the result is to use the principal value of the singular P' integral. I n contrast to
other reeips $hat m~igncompbx values fo sinwlar intepala, this proeduro
h the mtisfactory feature of preserving $he essential wociation of eonnplex
numhrs with the propagation function d p e ( ~ '  z").
For S more expli~ittmt of these extrapolations, we examine how &hesimple
propagation function is modified, by choosing p'ra' = p""af', and considering
x0 > zol,g?@" 3:
The physjcally inkresting regime be&= afker a time Iapm of many periods,
p"(z'  zO')>> 1. Then the integral is dominated by the immediate neighbor
hood of the singularity a t PO = and one can introduce a simplificstion by
replacing r (Pa)with
The result is
where %hem t r i x funadion TX describes the mechanism whereby, for the tmf
dime, zt virtuaf Hpztdiele goes through the cycle of transforming into a real
%M Fields Chap, 3
Rparticle and phulon, then back into a (no6 necessttrily the same) vi&uf
Hparticle that is detect& by the pro& source used to define the field. The
exciting fidd that appear8 in fhe inhgral expression surxznrg~zesthe @fleetof
%heinitial source excitation and of the u n l i ~ t e drepetiLions of Lhe~erevemible
conversions and is, therefore, considering all pDfa'together, the very field that
is being construeled. This point of view is similar to a xnuXLipfe setzt%!ring
analysis in terms of the last eoXXision. Xf this integral equation were t a be solvd
By iterafion, we would indeed be conside~ngmcceg~ivelymore; elabora;ts repeti
fions of the same bmis grocesa, The compa~sonwith fhe h a m descriptian aE
ane such action then identifies the matrix n. Tkis coqarison is ffl.cilitaM
by wfiting.

This symmetry is maintained when c(p0')e(P0)is replaced by unity, as is justified
by the predominance of the contributions for PO p''. The inference that the
integral is only of interest for p0 p' would seem to be contradicted by the
factor (p0'  which vanishes strongly under just these circumstances.
To see which tendency prevails, we approximate l',o0 (Po) by
the faetor  doe8 illdeed s u p p u s the reill part of the integrsl, but
not its ima@naw part.
i f ?,et Z 0, the finite imagina~yterm maintains the sign of the infinitesimal
imaginary quantity, ipO'c, and the latter is superfluous in the resulting
approximate equation:
is given by [we use the nonrelativistic approximation (316.67) but retain the
relativistic origin of energy]
The time t2 is R fiducial poillt \vithin the source K 2II(z"), and correspondingly
tlxe definition of Hparticle emission source appeam as
The use! of a reference point that is interior to the source rather than arbitrarilJ;
&oen is always posgible and can be useful in identifying the xnwhanical propep
ties of states. It hcorrseg mnndataw in demribing unstable pa&icles.
376 Fields Ctrrrp, 3
The initial and fixlai times are now explicit in the specification of stateg, although
only t ==: t  t is significant?,as we have emphasized by using E l as the reference
time for the photon fielid. The time integration is evaluated as
tltld the traxtsition probabilitjr, summed aver photon polarization8 and emission
directions, but still differential in the photon energy, becomes
k0 dko 1  2e"'2""L cos (kO  k f I r ) t + em'"' , (316,50)
711  
%2 (kO  h.! l d Z f ( * 7 1 1 ) ~
31 6 lnstobillty and multlpartlcta sx~hange 371
where
k f 11 = E11  El
and, of eoursc?,
~ K=I $akf rrl (IlplmlII)I 2.
The total probability is produced by carrying out the k' irltegration. That is
approximated under the assumption of \~\.eakinstability, r 1 1 << k f 11, by re
placing k v l f 11 w~ithunity and evaluating the integrals as
5vhicEi is the required value. The spectral distributiox~of ttre emitkd photon is
also exhibited on evaluating (316.50) at a time rrlt >> 1, such that the radiativ~
transition has certainly occurred, The result,
is the familiar Lorentzisn shape th%tidentifies the decay constant 711,the recip
rocd of the mean lifetime, tvith. the tvidth of the spectral line at halfmaimurn.
This is the shape of a spectral line emitted in a transition to the stable
Wparticle. But what if the final Hparticle is also unstable? Now eonsider n
third Hpsrtiele 111, ~vhiehcan only decay into X I , with the subsequent trans
mutation of the latter into the stable variety 1. In this situation two photons
are emitted and we must use W z zto describe the process. There are tutoanalo
gous terms in the relevant probability amplitude which are related by the
B. E. symmetry of the phobns. But, apart from the special circumstance
kf"lr 2rl h:& 1x1, only one of them terms is appreciable depending upon tvhich of
the photons has its frequency near kp 11 while the other frequency is close to
kfI 111. Thus, it suffices to regard the photons as distinguishable through fheir
frequerlcies and use only one of these terms. The probability amplitude for the
rvhole process is
tf"l1ere the time propagation functions detail the sueeessivc enusul nets of tllc
drama, In writing this expression, we have proeeedd ss thaugh the Hpadicles
of types II and III were unique, although additional indices a11, a111are neces
saw. T h a e detdls can be inse*d and do not d e e t the resulb, under the
physical circumstances indicated in (316.27). The z0 time integretioll is thc
one already performed, with zO' supplying the latver limit instead of tn. The
Lime inkgrd faetor of (S16.26) is, therefore,
The implied transition prsbability Chat refcrs only Lo the spectrail distribution
of the photons is
wiLh a width given by the sum af the individual HparLicle widths. This conclu
sion is parfieufarly transparent if one recognise8 that the double enerw iatepal
of (316.W) is equivslenl to s single time irtkgral:
It ~outdbe hard aot to suspect the existence of another approach that is capable
of producing this formula directly. We shdl find it, not surprisindy, in the
time cycle description.
But, first, 1eL us give an. analogous discussion of photon scattering, in order
to verify that the unphysicat infinite ttross section a t exact resonance has been.
removed by the explicit recognition of HparLicle instability, Elmtic wscattering
by the stable Epa&icle L will, be comidered, Then it ~u&ee1;3tro introduce
modified Eparticlis propagation functions in (315.88), which will be used only
in the aonrelativistie limit and in the gauge of (315.lM). The sigrmifiesnf
change is the ineroduction in (315.101) (\v@ ignore the l / n l term) of the
substitution
is typicd of any rwonant scatbring process. The bmic resananf crass seetion
is 4.1rg2, h m 4rr/(kf x1)2, which is multiplied by the number of resonant states,
grx, and divided by the multiplicity of the initid particles. Tfist is jusf the
fmtor of 2, referdng to the two phobn pofsri~stions,sinee Hparticle I has bmn
amurn& to be unique.
The promise to exhibik another and, more direct derivation of (316.62) will
be fulfilled, even to the point of generalizing this formulst so that it, refers to any
pair of urntable Hpadicles, which are capable of dwaying in other sequences
khan XI1 + 11 X. Here is the statement of the mare general problem. The
arbidra~ unstable Hparticle f I1 is creELCed near time zero. I t can decay to a par
ticulrzr unstable Hparticle I f as we11 W in other ways, and these secondary un
stable particles continue the eabsedc?until the stable particle I is reach&. Wh&
is the differential probability for finding B photon of frequency ko 11 k f r 111,
wiLhout reference to the ather photons of different frequency &hat are also
emitbd? For s spwified polarization, that probability is expressed by
which msumes 8 time in,terval long exlough to have the probability attain. its
final value. Let us supply two additional hetom, Gtkpthe pmbability amplitude
for detecting the photon kX, and i& ,complex conjugate. This produces
it8
tnstebiiity and mulripsrti~leexchange 376
The transition to the time cycle is made after time t2. Time t1 is now emounhred
on the return path, which is certainly 'later' than tz, and q(tl  i2) is replac4
by unity. Also, time t is reached 'efLer9irne tr and q(t  t l ) mu& be replaced
by q(tl  t). Since both t and tI refer to the return time path, there is no sign
change in the integral. The proper treatment of the r Lerrns is fixed by %he
physical necessity of maintaining the damping, the weakening of the ~oupling
~ C inereasing
h dime interval, All this gives the subsfitution:
and i b coxnplex conjugate, evaluaLed a t 11, applies on the rever8e Gime path.
Since the restriction k0 czs k f i 111 picks out the contribution from the specific
EfpafiieXe XI, the de~iredpdability, as it is dedueed from (%16.77), is
With dk0/2?r removed, the factor in front of the double time integral, summed
over polarizatiarrs, is the Aeoeseient for the dmay XXI +XI, Ia the h k r m k
of a more uniform no%%tion we: shailt now denote it by 711 ux. T o aimplify W
..time irrbgrals we introduce new v t t ~ a b l e ~ :
which mnges from m t~ QD, and t<, the snadier of the two %inn@#
whiah vahw
from O to m, Then, %hetransformations
When XII can only radiab to If, 7x1 1x1 = "Frrr, a ~ we d have ~ e p r d ~ ~ c x f
(316.62). Mart3 generally, the probability of emitting any hquency in the
~ is (TI1 I I ~ / Y I I ~ <
neighborhood of k f 111 ) 1, ~ecarding
tO
31 5 Instability end multfparti~leexchange 377
and this expresses the competition between the specified transition and all1
othem that 311 can undergo, The sum af these fractions over a11 decay mode8
of If1 is equal to unity.
The time cycle extension of W z z also gives a direct derivation of the rem
nance scattering emss sction (3llieCi9), or, rather, ifs generaliszttion in which
I1 beeomes an Wparticle that can decay in ways other than down to the gtable
particle 1, and rr becomes the corresponding total. cross swltion. A photon is
incident on X, and eventuizlly one again finds I, aecompzznic;d by one or more
photons. The total probability for these phenomena, \vith s given interaction
time, is
When the initial particXes are introduced by appropriate sources, two of each
kind, this beeomes a Lime cycle vacuum amplitude, deseribd by iW2z. The
result is obtained from (316.77) by replacing XI1 with the stable I, and using
the field of an incoming photon insted of (&X6,78) :
The integrand depends only upon the time variabb 1 =. l z  t l , and the integra
tion over t< is identified with the duration of the inter~etion. The total erom
section is found by dividing the photon flux 2k0 dwr into the transition proba
bility per unit; time, On recognizing thaf
e2(k!11)' /(IIajx * e 1)i2 = T ~ I ~ YXI,
I (316*88)
a
we get the dominant contribution to the cross section, for k' kf 11, as
,P
The above discussion is ixreompfek since no mention has been made of the
ddi.tionsl t e r n in IFzz that is dewnded by the cmsaing symmetry of tbe pho
tons. It is produced by reversing the sign of k'. This tRrm is certainly non
resonant. But, more important is the appeesance of the initial energy as EI  k a ;
the value that should be a~signedto the damping constant of Hpa&icle I1 is
not rI1 but %em, as in (316.65). Then the resuXting dime inlegrd gives
+
6(kf 1 k 4 0.
All the developmends of this aeetiotoxl have used the exampie of spinless
particle8 that are bound to form El[particlw. A similar treatment for spin +
p a ~ i c l e swould run in exact paraIXet, with occasisn~iinserLians ar deletion8 of
c(p') factors, for example, to represent the changed statistics. The nonrelativ
istic results are identical.
The natural instability of Hparticles has direckd attention to the necessity
of considering multigartiele exchanges, in addition to singleparticlepropaetion.
It is a complementary aspect of $he principle of spaeetime uiformity that
couplings identified through the examination, of red proeesms eontinue to be
meaningful when. appfid Lo virGual processes, This says thad multiptzrtiele
exchanges are significant, although the energy CO produce sevemX red partietes
m6y not be available. Thw, &henext stage of d y x l a ~ c a levolution. is %be
~ystematicgeneraliz;ation of all singlepartick exchanges b e t w ~ nsources to
those involving two particllcls, including their unlimited repetition. Before em
barking on. this masive progfam, however, wre shall give a relatively b ~ e dis f
cug~ionof the ~avitationalversion of ~ u e hconeepk as primitive interactions
and gauge invariance.
(31 7.5)
and therefore
The introduction of the source restriction, through the divergence of this equa
tion isslate?a the a~pectof the field h,,(z) that is governed by the arbitrary
(z) vector,
a,(hpv(x)  ~ ~ " h ( z= ) )a2ty(z). (3 17.7)
Returning to (31 7,4), we deduce
Since the arbitrariness of the vector E,(z) is still maintained in these field equa
tions, they are unaffected by a redefinition of the field h,,(%) having the form
The gauge i n v ~ i a n c eof the Iefbhsnd side of (317.14) is not realized through
the invariance of r,,~,but rather
and
Note, however, that thege gwgr?, transformation rmpsnses do not invdve first
derivatives of Lfre Ex fz).
Another ~ y a k mof firstorder differential equations fit is (33.20, 211, with
m = Oj is praducd by the definitions
@~XE(%) ~ ) aph~W(z) dlh~@(je)
=  w V X ~ (= (3 17.17)
and
= aph(z)  dhhyh(s),
oy(z) = wPhh(~) (317.18)
name1y,
ah@,.k(z)  a.w,(z) = K(T~.(S) + ~ , , T ( Z ) ) . (317.19)
The reBponse of thme fields to gabuge transformations i s gven by
and
@ph~(~)@~xP(z)ak(ap~r(~) +
 ~P&(x)) (317.2131)
@p (4 + @p (z)4 a p a k t k ( ~
 )d2& ( X ) . (317.21)
It is observed that Lbe divergence af the vector field m,($) is gauge invariant, A
comparison of the form of the divergenee inferred from (317.18) with (317.9a)
shows that
d,wg(x) = +KT(%), (317.22)
which is dso the eantraction of (317.19), sinee
31 7 The gravitational field 389
Another connwtion between the two thirdrank tensors, which implies this one, is
Apart from a, divergence krm, this Lapange funetion is the analogue of (35.411,
with m . 0. For simplicity, we cfo not include a source for the thirdrank
tensor field, in contrast with (35.40). The stationary requirement for va~ations
of hp', or h"""  +@@"h,recavers (317.14)) and variaLions of F,,x, &er re
arrangement~indieakd by the structure of (33.45), reproduce (317.12). The
Laf~;r&nge funetion is not gaum invariant,
382 Fields Chap. 3
which itlustrat@ the freedom to add divergence terms, This athmative has
d r e d y been n o M in Eqs. (35.31,32).
The similar development that i s bmed on the fimborder diEerentiaX equs
Gions (317.17, 19) stafts with
which msures the inva~anceof the tbction. Whm wh,, Io~wi k independenf
sfatus and is defined by (317.f7), the Lavange function clan be chomn M
which is the quadratic function of the fir& defivakives of h,,(tt) that is pmdued
by averadng the two alternatives of (317.35) :
31 7 Ths gravitational field 383
The stress tensor Fy(s) has been given a kinematical definition, m~hichis
not unique, through the response to infinihsimal coordinate deformations,
The two concqts are identified by requiring invariance of the action under the
unified gaugecoordinate transformation,
+
The use of the total stmss tensor !Py P",as the fwtor of h,, in the mtim,
is the introduction of a primitive interaction. Same modification of tB"is needed
since it is not conserved inside pa&iek, aaurces, and a gravitational model of
particle mmes must; be introduced. But let us dekr the biscugsion of that ques
tion and proceed with the development, whieh is modeled so ctosdy on the
eleclromagnetic one, in order to reach Lbe point of divergence between the two
very different physical sy~tems. Consider %heexample of spinless pa&icles,
using the simplesl stress Lensor form, Eq. (37.81,
including
= hpV(x) + *(a, ~ x , ( x )+ a, ~ x , c , ( x ) ) , (317.52)
= /(d5) ( l + ~ ( z ) ) + ( z ) ~ ,(317.54)
which is satisfied if
(dz)( l + h(x)) = ( d z ) ( l + E(@). (317.55)
For the infinitesimal transformation (317.50)) the transformation law of
volume elements becomes
(dz) = (dx) det (aF/azV)
= (dx)(i  a, ~ x ' ( x ) ) , (317.56)
and it is required that
This can only mean that h(x) is restricted to be a very small quantity, per
mitting ha, 6 9 to be neglected as a secondorder object.
The situation is similar for the quadratic derivative term of the action.
We first notice that
which doe8 reduce to the first statement of (31745), if one neglects seeondorder
quantities by replzccixrg gg"(x) with g@', on the righthand side,
The ten~org,,(%), in~verseto gpv(z),
and
The missing constant term can be added in (317.72) since it changes the
Lagrange function by a divergence. Then the strong field generalization is
clearly indica;ted:
Z K (g(%),
~ ~ ( 4 ) (II(x)) li2gpv(2)Rpu(2),
E (317.75)
with
Rhv 8hrtv aPr;h ~ ; ~ + r ~k~r:h,
$~ (31 7.76)
This will indeed contribute an invariant action if yMvRp.is a scalar with respect
to arbitrary coordinate transformations, The required covsriant knsor behavior
of R,,(z) must emerge from the transformation law of the threeindex symbol
) The latter should resemble a thirdrank tensor but cannot be entirely
of this nature, according to the ~veilk.field transformation of (317.45) which
~ontainssecond derivatives with respwt to coordinates. A suitable generaliza
tioxr is stated by
r;,(i);1.~" rig(~);i,~Pa,~g+ a,a,zk. (317.77)
This transformation Xatv is such that a coordinate covariant derivative of first
rank contrsvariant vectors can be defined:
= aa.VP(z)+ r:&(z)vk(z). (317.78)
= (a. + r,(z))~v"(z
v,vP(~)
The matfix notation facilitates the consideration, af
[v,, v,lw" =$X V&, (317.79)
where
R,,"~ =. a,r:~ aVr:& 3 T:,T";~  r:,r,Ph (3 17 .so)
is indeed a fauxrthrank tensor, which is antisymmet~ealin p and, v. We can now
recognize the tensor character of
These results are used in applying the stationary action principle to varis
tions of P:, as it appears in g(g, F). The vanishing coefficient of 6Pi, in 6W
states that [gppis gH"(z)j
v,[(o) 1j2s"l  a i ~ , [ (  ~ ) =
lizy'Y] 0, (3 17.88)
which imp1ies
v~[(~)'~=
~ ~0." ] (357.89)
From the latter pmperty one d e ~ v e s ,successively, the vanishing of the co
variant derivalives for g ( ~ ) g'"(~),
, and g , , ( ~ ) . The last statement,
mfhieh is the strong field generalization of (31712). The weak field vemion af
(3f7*90) appears in (317.29). As one can verify directly, the vani~hingco
variant derivative of g ( ~ )implies, according to (317,86),%h&
which generalizes (31 7.13). This form ensures that Bp,, as defined in (317.76),
is rz symmetrical tensor.
The variation of gp"(z)in the pul;.eXy gravitational contribution to the action
induee~
where
4, R,,
X $gPvEp
m R = FvR,v, (3 1%94)
and we have used the deterninandal property
The Zlensor G,, obeys a differential identityt which is a consequence of the
coardinatti?invariance of the gravitatisnd action term. We firrat note %heinfini
tesimal response of ( X ) , analogous to (3 17.63),
where
The variation of ggvfz) in the matter part, of the action, defines a hnsor
t,,(z) that generaIizes the stress tensor,
it lis Eimtein" pgra;vitationat field equation The sfress tensor divergence eondi
tion (317.103) appesm again, now as an identity demanded by the ~tmeture
of the p a ~ t a t i s n a field
l equation.
The replacement of spin O particles as the model of mavitating matbr by
okher inkger spin, parYtielm is relatively straighithmard, A rather special but
interesting example is provided by photons. The Lagranp function
(317.1 IQ)
aU reference to g,, is ctoncentrsled in the Imt term. The stress bnsor (317.1 12)
i s regained, divided by (g) to conform 4th the d t e r d meaning af F""". BuL
now we can see something very clearly: (g)"2~r.g.h i s homogenwu~of degree
gero in the campanexrts of g,,(zj, which is to gay that the Lapange fmetion
(327.113) is i n v a ~ a nunder
t the transformation
for arbitray X(%), The impEiesLlion, for an infiniksimal deviation of X(z) fmm
unity, i~
112 v
(&)(g) P fi, SX = 0 (31 7,115)
or
l(%)= gb,(z)t""(x)= 0, (317.116)
which, is tme.. Id is e ~ c l e nthat
t we me now considering a generalization of $he
cadormaf transformE1Ciona that were o~@nallyinfroducd through the can
3 Fields Chap. 3
where mpYsKk
is symmetrical in p and v , in K and X, and obeys
"'
where mNF9is a tensor, refening to the matter field and the gravitational fieid,
that h@ the symrnetries previously noted. An illustration for s p h OIgenerfziized
from (37.88), is
For definibeness, the coacient is ehosen so that the new ~trmstensor, in the
absenee of the gravihtiomtal field,
.,8 = a,$aR  f g,v(a" + m2+2) it(a,a"*2 g,. (317.127)
has the prope&y
1 "c.
where
is to be computed from
&l,v = &kg,,*
1rrvolved here are
= 6(3, log (g) 'l2] = 2gP bX (3 17,135)
and
5/""vr;, .=; gwap &X,
thus assuring the invariance of the action, for m = 0, under the ~ o u pof
conformal transformations.
Harold interjwts a question,
H. Your preoccupation with conformal trangformrationa in the context of
what is eustonna~lycdted general relativity makes me suspc?cd that you, inkad
to give a aource theory setting for some of the more recent atbnrpts t a enlarge
the fmmework aE general relativity. I am thinking particulshriy of the ideas of
P, Jordan and BransDickc: (BD), and of Diekek related eRort8 to e~labfish.s
discrepancy between the residual perihelion, precession of Mercuv and the
Einstein prediction, The BD progosat is based on Mach'@ppriciple bvhich,
while a very intriguing notion, is devoid of immediate obsewational. content.
caxt one sugge~tp o ~ ~ i b i l i t of
i e ~modifying the Einskin theory on somewhat
more ph ysiealt gounds?
S. That is indeed my intent;ion.
h t uss begin, by asking wbedher, through some exhnsion of the theory,
conformal ixlva~aneecould be made an. exact symmetry property. Celrtainly
the msss term of (317.130) can be multiplied by cr(z)', where a(%)is a new
scalar field that responds to eonformal transformations as
where R = g@"R,,retains its meaning in terms of the g,, and their derivatives.
It would seem thsf we have acquired rt new nnasslws particle of spin 0, repre
~ n h byd the scalar field ~ ( 2 ) .But something is amiss, In a weak field situs
Lion, with
g(%) 1 4 ~ ( z ) , (317. 140)
the dominant f/;, Ldtrms in this Lagraxlgr: funetion are
The p derivative term has the wrong sign. And the source of the p field, pro
+
portional h R ~ i ? , vanishes according to (317.107). All this indicaks &at
the p field does not descrirbe a physicd excitation. It can be transformed away,
by introducing the conformal transformation \%rith(X(%)) I t 2 equal to to(z), which
reduces the latkr to unity.
Nevertheless, the eonfsrmal invariant version is valuable in pointing out a
new direction, As we have b e n learning in high energy particle physics, nature
does not always seleet what we, in our ignorance, lvould judge to be the most
symmetrical and harmonious possibility. Perhaps the formal inva~anceunder
conformal transformations is broken in suck ai. way that tz, ma8sless, zero spin
particle does exist, IDespik the principle of noriloeality for mmsless padicles,
one cannot object to such a psrlticle on experimental grounds if it interacts with
matter sufficiently more weakly than a ~ a v i t o n ,In order to realize this sugges
tion, we must add an additional contribution tro the Lagrange function that
eaeictively reverses the sign of the ~r derivative t e r n and msigns it an arbitrary
coeacient. That is not enough, however, for the tr field would still have no
source; it is necessary to destroy the combination R $ ~ t This . can be done
arbitrtzriily, but $he possibilities are illustrated by two elementaq stfkrnative
procedures: remove the g2 faetor that multiplies m 2 ; remove the g2 factor that
multiplies R. The firs%procedure gives a version of %hie?" BD theory. The
second one has the same practical csnsequenees, and seems somewhat simpler.
Xt is described below.
The modified Lagange function is
+
where a > O is a new empirical constant. The factor I a is introduced in order
to retain the o ~ G n aphysical
l significance of K * This Lagrange function leads to
the f ~lowing
f field equations :
where t,, is the total stress tensor, adding to the matter contribution that af
the er field,
394 Fields Chap. 3
The equatianv (311.143145) are independent of the made1 used for matter,
provided the matter part of the L%grarrgefunction has been made conformally
invafisxrt by the local introduction of the a field, implying
which is reivritden in the sfstGed form by eliminating 1,. It is also obtained direetly
by applying the sction principle to the conformal response of the noninvariank
f i a ~ a n g efunction,
giving
= @R 1.
CUK
(s)"2a,[(g) l~ZB@uau@l] 14a!
(317. 1.50)
Under the eireumstanees trr << to@,the Newtonisn potential energy is retained,
along with the gravitational red shift. For light, with t k k = to', the deflection
and the slowing of the spwd of light are reduced by the factor 1/(1 $ a). In
+
diseus~ingperihefion precession, the klnetie e n e w correction factor L (22"/m)
+ +
isr hanged it~to1 [(l  a)/(b a)](2T/w), which gives
33 7 The gravitational f Sald 395
where the funetions r,,, s, s,,, IP are all of order unity which is to be judged here
on a logarithmic scale. Then, if we exhibit; only the scale f a t o r s on opposite
sides of the two field equations (317.1.13, 1441, they read
To be consistent with the purely timedependent tensor field, the scalar field is
also of that character, a(t), Xf it is assumed Lhgt the matder stress tensor has
only the energy component, too = Pm, the field equations imply
where the dot cjtesignates time derivative. We shall be csnknt ta pick out a
particular solution:
= (t/T)"3, ) (a/3)'j2 log (l/$@),
~ ( i= p, = 0, (317.163)
where T indicabs the present era, and
This solution describes the matter density as negXidbXe compared go the energy
density contributed by the a field, whieh, evafuakd at the present era, is
 
Here is an illustration of (317.160), with R T,M pT3. The currently
aeceptcd value of H . 2.4 X 1018 sec' implies p 1.0 X 1 0 g/em3p ~ 8s
~ ~
s u n n i ~th& a is fairly small compared to unity, Pre~umablythe simplifying
feature of the model, p,, = 0, means that the nnalkr density ip, at least an order
3"t The grevitationaf field 397
of mszgnitude less than this value of p, bvhich is not inconsistent with the observ*
tional data. The only sensifive dependence on a oecurs in to, the time a t which
Lhe laws of physics bmonne quafitatively similar to those now prevailing, in that
c($)> 0, t >z to, To the extent that there is evidence for the winbnanee of
these laws over a significant fraction of the age of the univerm, a is correspond
ingly bounded from above. The nominal value a = 0.06 gives to ~ o  ~ T .
The ease with which integer spin L s ~ a n g efunetions acquire general co

ordinette invltriance by suitably introducing doe8 not extend to psrtieles
of integer ++ spin, T o appreciate the difference let us folloui. the earlier wwk
fidd procedure, now using the apin 4 Lagrange function
to form
+
t,. = ~ + ~ O b [ ~ , ( l l i ) ar.(l/i)a,lJ.
v + (3 17.1438)
and
g,.(z) = e,"(s)g.be!(z) = e;(z)@~.fr) (317,178)
Regarding the fist form of the l a ~ equation
% aa a, matfix prduet, vce infer the
dekrminantal relation
B($) = (det (317.179)
or
(g(z)) ' l 2 = det @,.(X) = &(g). (347.18C1;)
The indicatd provisional generalization of (317.16I)) is
with
where
L~TOL = ?02 = l"flb. (317.191)
It is the action of the coordinate derivatives on &(l($)) that disturbs the
foeal invafiance of the Lagrange function. (9317.181). A coordinab displace
ment induces an infinitesimat. Lorentz transformation and an associated field
tansformation :
Eag(z 4 dz) = la,(x>[8i4 hcb(~)]p
(317.192)
L(l(z f dz)) = L ( l ( z ) ) [ lt &'d~.b(z)+@"I,
in which
dwab ==t doba E lCa dlcb, (317193)
and therefore
L'd,L = +iF,a,lebgab. (317.194)
I n order do compnsate this eRect the coordin&e derivative in the tagrange
function is replaced by
a,  t i ~ . , ~ @ " ~ , (3~7.195)
where ua,b(;c) behwes like a covariant vector with respect t o general coordinate
fransfarmatians, and responds do Xoeal Lorentz transformations in such a
manner that
L'(a,  ai@.,boa6)L = dg  aiwapboab. (3 17.196)
The required transformation law is
A fundamental mixed t e n ~ a is
r defined by the cornrnutrtLor
which has the character of an antisymmetricat Lensor of the seeond rank for
general coordinate transformations, and of an antisymmetl.iea1 tensor of the
second rank with respect to focal Lorenta transformations. A scalar in both
senses is construct4 by
= R(z),
e'"(z)ePb(z)Rpv.b(x) (&17.200)
and provides the basis for a gravitational Lagrange function:
I n the weak field limit, where the linguistic distinction of %heindices is re
moved and
@"(X)c?i g@@ h p a ( % ) , (317.262)
Flslda Chap, 3
where
aabc + @aeb " @cab "“k gbcha  @&BAG Q:, (317.m)
it is the ~ t r o field
~ g generalizeztion of (31 7.17).
Amth:er w a k Md propem, Eq. (317.n), is generalized by defining
This is recognized aa the statement that the covariant derivative of gf"" vanish=,
, : ' l with the quantities of (31 7.91), known usually a s Christoffel
and identifies
symbols. After this, it is abundantly clear %hat the two objects defined in.
(3 17.124) and (3 17..f99) are connected by
where the correctness of the algebraic sign can be verified in the weak field
limit* Thus, the two gravitational Lagange functions, $(g, l") and c(@,O)
are idemticd.
Returning do the spin $ Lagrange function (3X7.181), we insert the eo
ordinate d e ~ v a t i v egeneralization stated in (317. 195) and obtain
where, i d should be noted, $he total antieommutativity of the field extracts the
antisymmetrical part of the matrices u0r*obC.This removes the terms with
a = b or a = c, trhieh are proportional to the symmetrical matrices roro.
Then, since
and thus,
where the first two teirns can be united through the reintroduction of the spinar
eovariant derivative (317.f 95).
The sedar defived from this k n m r is
We must replace x"" by a functional of the g,,,zpfx, g), such thstt under a generd
coordinate transformation
xp(z,8) z== ~ ' C x g),
t (317.235)
for then
shows the requird dynsannkal equivafeme of the field8 y,,(a), #(s) a d 51,,(2),
+(X), Under weak field conditions we write
(317.241)
where tC""is fhe tensor given in (37.8), which. is sueh Lhst
Asmrning that the graviton detection sources do not overlap fhe K support re
@on,one can use Lhe sourwfree, weak gr~viLtls1ionalfield equations (317.13,14)
La derive
The gravitational f Deld 40Ei
Alternativety, one might have b w n with the la& form, where the additional
k r m mrvw tO remove the responw of + ( X ) to infinitesimal coordinate trans
formation~.Similar discussions can be given for any other type of matter source
and fidd, wifh appmpriate &Lention to their transfornnation properties.
The weak field form of the gravitorr source term in the action is
TRdnI"pCo> 4 (dx)TY(z)~lr.P(z)
(d.) ) P (31 7.246)
where
d J I T ~ ( x=
) 0,
and a eonstanL is added to &rrive a t the second vemion of (317.246). The
physical property to be represented is thaL the radiation of an ztdditional grsviton
can accompany the working of a graviton bouree as well as a ma;tder source. The
mathematical problem is the removal of the responsle of g,(z) to infinitegimal
coodinale transfarmatians, apad fmm gradient hrrnsgsuge transfarmationls
which do not contribute in (317.246). If we use the symbol to indicak
identiw apart from gadient term^, Che response of gr,, to infinitesimal coordinate
tr~nsformations, Eq. (3 17..96), is expregsed by
X . The discussion of Eqt . (11.44) does not make clear that cornmutativity of the two
displacement operators remains an alternative possibility (the numerical
coefficient zero cannot be changed to unity by redefining the operators),
2. The f o m s of Lagrange functions that yield first o d e r differential equations
were merely stated in the text. The genesis of thew expressions might be
clarified by this illustration far spin Q. Begir*ningwith the second order fom
[Eq. (&5.12)]
The nature of the system is not changed thereby since, on extending the action
grinGiple to $, we learn that QI,  vanishes, apart fram a pssible source
term. But, on adding (A1) and (A21, the squares of the first derivativs
cancel, producing the Lagrange function (315.161, from which the fimtorder
field equations fallow, This procedure is the analope of one for ordinary
mechanics that begins wit h the quadratic Lagangian