Advertisement

S-Matrix Theory of Electromagnetic Interactions

With Topics in Weak and Gravitational Interactions
  • A. O. Barut
Conference paper
Part of the Supplementa book series (FEWBODY, volume 2/1965)

Abstract

The S-matrix theory, as we see it, is a relativistic formulation of interactions of fundamental particles based on their particle properties (not fields), that is, the formulation of the laws of physics in terms of the c-number scattering matrix elements. The scattering matrix itself is defined in terms of the (free physical) particle properties such as momenta, spin, and other quantum numbers which are numbers labelling the representations and states of symmetry groups. We shall give a precise mathematical definition of “particles” and of “scattering”. There is no need to make a fundamental distinction between the S-matrix theory and the relativistic quantum field theory as they both essentially lead to the same results. In one case the basic analyticity properties of the S-matrix are (partly) derived from field axioms and perturbation theory, and in the other case, partly from unitarity condition and are partly postulated. The difference at this stage is perhaps a practical and didactic one; the S-matrix approach is a more direct, computationally and conceptually simple one, using only quantities very close to observed ones.

Keywords

Irreducible Representation Massless Particle Electromagnetic Interaction Anomalous Magnetic Moment Reducible Representation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    This question has often been answered in the negative; see for example, G. F. Chew, Science Progress, 51, 529 (1963),Google Scholar
  2. 1a.
    P. V. Landshoff, The S-Matrix Theory without Field Theory, Cambridge Lecture notes, 1964 (unpublished).Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    We follow here a group theoretical specification of the S-matrix; the Hubert space being explicitly given by the direct sum of the representation spaces of the symmetry groups. The kinematical framework is thus the same as in quantum field theory. All properties of the S-matrix, including C, P, T and spin-statistics will be obtained from the corresponding unitary representations. See also A. O. Barut, The Framework of S-Matrix Theory, in Strong Interactions and High Energy Physics, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh 1964, and references therein. See alsoGoogle Scholar
  4. 2a.
    H. Joos, Fortschritte der Physik 10, 3 (1962).Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    G. C. Wick, A. S. Wightman, E. P. Wigner, Phys. Rev. 83, 101 (1952).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 4.
    M. L. Goldberger and K. M. Watson, Phys. Rev. 127, 2264 (1962);MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 4a.
    M. Froissart, M. L. Goldberger and K. M. Watson, Phys. Rev. 131, 2820 (1963).MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 5.
    E. P. Wigner, Ann. Math. 40, 149 (1939).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 5a.
    A. S. Wightman in Dispersion Relations and Elementary Particle Physics, ed. by C. de Witt (John Wiley Sons, Inc., New York, 1960).Google Scholar
  10. 6.
    There are also infinite dimensional representations of E 2 (E. P. Wigner, in Theoretical Physics, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1963). But these are not realized for free particles.Google Scholar
  11. 7.
    D. Zwanziger, Phys. Rev. 133, B 1056 (1964).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 8.
    Unstable particles have also been represented by non-unitary representations of the Poincaré group with a complex energy momentum vector. D. Zwanziger, Phys. Rev. 131, 2818 (1963); E. G. Beltrametti and G. Luzzatto (preprint).MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 9.
    This proof was given in A. O. Barut, I. Muzinich, and D. N. Williams, Phys. Rev. 130, 442 (1963).MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 10.
    For a detailed discussion of invariant amplitudes and in particular the problem of kinematical singularities see K. Hepp, Helv. Physica Acta 36, 355 (1963) ;MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 10a.
    K. Hepp, Helv. Physica Acta 37, 55 (1964) ;MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 10b.
    D. N. Williams, Lawrence Radiation Lab. Report UCRL-11113, Berkeley 1965; H. Joos, Forts, d. Phys. 10, 3 (1962) and reference [9].Google Scholar
  17. 11.
    R. Jost, Helv. Physica Acta 30, 409 (1947).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 12.
    H. P. Stapp, Phys. Rev. 128, 2139 (1962).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 13.
    For a recent discussion of extended unitarity see J. B. Boyling, Nuovo Cimento 33, 1356 (1964) and references therein.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 14.
    D. I. Olive, Phys. Rev. 135, B 745 (1964);MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 14a.
    H. P. Stapp, Lectures on S-Matrix Theory, to be published by the International Centre for Theoretical Physics, in 1965.Google Scholar
  22. 15.
    G. A. O. Källen, in Elementary Particle Physics and Field Theory, K. W. Ford, editor (W. A. Benjamin, New York 1961), and references therein.Google Scholar
  23. 16.
    K. Nishijima, Fundamental Particles (W. A. Benjamin, New York 1963).Google Scholar
  24. 17.
    A. Petermann, Helv. Phys. Acta 36, 942 (1963).Google Scholar
  25. 18.
    D. Zwanziger, in Proceedings of the Symposium on the Lorentz Group, University of Colorado Press, Boulder, 1965.Google Scholar
  26. 19.
    L. Landau, Doklady 60, 207 (1948);Google Scholar
  27. 19a.
    C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 77, 242(1950).Google Scholar
  28. 20.
    For a recent discussion of infrared corrections see, for example, D. R. Yennie, S. C. Frautschi and H. Suura, Ann. of Physics 13, 379 (1961).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 21.
    We follow here essentially A. O. Barut and R. Blade, Nuovo Cimento 39, 331 (1965).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 22.
    See, for example, J. M. Jauch and F. Rohrlich, The Theory of Electrons and Photons, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Cambridge, 1953, p. 229.Google Scholar
  31. 23.
    In fact if one starts from the dispersion relation for a scattering process (for all s and t) one can derive a dispersion relation for the form factor onfy if one neglects the crossed channels [see H. P. Stapp, UCRL 11766, part IV]. This seems then to pose a problem how the double dispersion relations are compatible with the dispersion relations for form factors.Google Scholar
  32. 24.
    The derivation based on the pole approximation of Fig. 11 was first given by S. Weinberg, Physics Letters 9, 357 (1964).Google Scholar
  33. 24a.
    For the derivation of the conservation of form factors (3.57), see A. O. Barut, Physics Letters 10, 356 (1964).Google Scholar
  34. 25.
    J. Lettner and S. Okubo, Phys. Rev. 136, B 1542 (1964); K. Hiida and Y. Yamaguchi, Prog. Theor. Physics (1965).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 1965

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. O. Barut
    • 1
  1. 1.International Centre for Theoretical PhysicsInternational Atomic Energy AgencyTriesteItaly

Personalised recommendations