Skip to content

Prologue Solutions

← Back to problems　|　Back to chapter

Table of Contents

Basic

Medium

Advanced

Basic

B-1. Dimensional Analysis in Natural Units

→ Back to problem

Strategy: With \(\hbar = c = 1\), unify the dimensions of all physical quantities as \([\text{mass}]^n\). \([\hbar] = [E][t] = 1 \Rightarrow [t] = [E]^{-1}\), \(c = [\ell]/[t] = 1 \Rightarrow [\ell] = [t]\). The reference is \([E] = [\text{mass}]\).

Quantity Mass dimension \(n\) Reason
(a) \(E\) \(+1\) \([E] = [\text{mass}]\) (by definition)
(b) \(\ell\) \(-1\) \([\ell] = [t] = [E]^{-1}\)
(c) \(t\) \(-1\) From \([\hbar] = [E][t] = 1\)
(d) \(p\) \(+1\) \([p] = [E]/c = [E] \cdot [\text{mass}]^0 = [\text{mass}]\)
(e) \(S\) \(0\) \([S] = [\hbar] = 1\), so dimensionless

Check: \([d^4x] = [t][\ell]^3 = [\text{mass}]^{-4}\), so \([\mathcal{L}] = [\text{mass}]^4\) is required (used in A2).

B-2. Inner Product of 4-Vectors

→ Back to problem

\(\eta_{\mu\nu} = \mathrm{diag}(+1,-1,-1,-1)\) (mostly minus).

(a) \(p_\mu = \eta_{\mu\nu}p^\nu\):

\(p_0 = +E, \quad p_1 = -p_x, \quad p_2 = -p_y, \quad p_3 = -p_z\)

(b) Invariant:

\(p^\mu p_\mu = \eta_{\mu\nu}p^\mu p^\nu = (p^0)^2 - |\mathbf{p}|^2 = E^2 - |\mathbf{p}|^2\)

(c) Restoring conventional units:

In natural units, \(p^\mu p_\mu = m^2\). Restoring dimensions with \([E] \to [E]/c\) (aligning components by dividing by c) and \([m] \to mc^2\):

\(\frac{E^2}{c^2} - |\mathbf{p}|^2 = m^2 c^2 \quad\Rightarrow\quad E^2 = |\mathbf{p}|^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4\)

This is the standard relativistic energy-momentum relation. \(\boxed{E^2 = |\mathbf{p}|^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4}\)

Consistency check: At rest \(\mathbf{p} = 0\), we get \(E = mc^2\). For \(m = 0\) (photon), we get \(E = |\mathbf{p}|c\). Both limits are consistent with known results.

B-3. Threshold for Particle Production

→ Back to problem

(a) Invariant mass \(\sqrt{s}\):

\(p_1^\mu = (E, \mathbf{p}_1), \quad p_2^\mu = (M, \mathbf{0})\) (target at rest)

\(s = (p_1 + p_2)^\mu(p_1 + p_2)_\mu = (E + M)^2 - |\mathbf{p}_1|^2\)

Substituting \(|\mathbf{p}_1|^2 = E^2 - m^2\):

\(s = (E + M)^2 - (E^2 - m^2) = E^2 + 2EM + M^2 - E^2 + m^2 = m^2 + M^2 + 2EM\)

\(\boxed{\sqrt{s} = \sqrt{m^2 + M^2 + 2EM}}\)

(b) Threshold for Higgs production:

For \(p + p \to p + p + H\), the threshold is \(\sqrt{s} = 2m_p + m_H\). Substituting \(m = M = m_p\) and \(E = m_p + T\):

\((2m_p + m_H)^2 = 2m_p^2 + 2(m_p + T)m_p = 2m_p^2 + 2m_p^2 + 2m_p T = 4m_p^2 + 2m_p T\)

\(T = \frac{(2m_p + m_H)^2 - 4m_p^2}{2m_p} = \frac{4m_p^2 + 4m_p m_H + m_H^2 - 4m_p^2}{2m_p} = 2m_H + \frac{m_H^2}{2m_p}\)

Substituting numerical values (\(m_p = 0.938\ \mathrm{GeV}\), \(m_H = 125\ \mathrm{GeV}\)):

\(T_{\mathrm{thr}} = 2(125) + \frac{125^2}{2 \times 0.938} = 250 + \frac{15625}{1.876} \approx 250 + 8329 \approx 8579\ \mathrm{GeV}\)

\(\boxed{T_{\mathrm{thr}} \approx 8.58\ \mathrm{TeV}}\)

Verification: This quantitatively confirms the phenomenon that the threshold energy in asymmetric collisions becomes orders of magnitude larger compared to symmetric collisions (center-of-mass frame). Since the LHC uses 13 TeV center-of-mass colliding beams in a symmetric collision configuration, the same physics is accessible at far lower energy than the 8.58 TeV fixed-target equivalent required for Higgs (125 GeV) production. This is the advantage of colliding beam experiments.

B-4. Matrix Operations for Lorentz Boosts

→ Back to problem

(a) Calculation of \(\gamma\):

\(\beta = 3/5, \quad \beta^2 = 9/25, \quad 1 - \beta^2 = 16/25\)

\(\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \beta^2}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{16/25}} = \frac{5}{4}\)

\(\boxed{\gamma = 5/4}\)

(b) Four-momentum after the boost:

\(\gamma = 5/4, \quad \gamma\beta = (5/4)(3/5) = 3/4\)

Acting on \(p^\mu = (5m, 3m, 0, 0)\):

\(p'^0 = \gamma p^0 - \gamma\beta p^1 = (5/4)(5m) - (3/4)(3m) = 25m/4 - 9m/4 = 16m/4 = 4m\)

\(p'^1 = -\gamma\beta p^0 + \gamma p^1 = -(3/4)(5m) + (5/4)(3m) = -15m/4 + 15m/4 = 0\)

\(p'^2 = 0, \quad p'^3 = 0\)

\(\boxed{p'^\mu = (4m, 0, 0, 0)}\)

(c) Conservation of the Lorentz invariant:

\(p^\mu p_\mu = (5m)^2 - (3m)^2 - 0 - 0 = 25m^2 - 9m^2 = 16m^2\)

\(p'^\mu p'_\mu = (4m)^2 - 0 - 0 - 0 = 16m^2\)

Both agree: \(\boxed{p^\mu p_\mu = p'^\mu p'_\mu = 16m^2}\).

Physical interpretation: \(p'^\mu = (4m, 0, 0, 0)\) is the four-momentum in the rest frame. This means the boost is a transformation to the particle's rest frame (the particle's velocity \(v = p^1/p^0 \cdot c = 3c/5\) equals the boost velocity). The rest mass is \(4m\), and \(m_{\mathrm{rest}}^2 = 16m^2\) is consistent with the invariant.

B-5. Kinematics of Electron-Positron Pair Production

→ Back to problem

(a) Invariant mass:

Photon \(k^\mu = (E_\gamma, E_\gamma, 0, 0)\) (massless), nucleus \(P_N^\mu = (M, \mathbf{0})\).

\(s = (k + P_N)^\mu(k + P_N)_\mu = (E_\gamma + M)^2 - E_\gamma^2\)

Expanding: \(E_\gamma^2 + 2E_\gamma M + M^2 - E_\gamma^2 = 2E_\gamma M + M^2\)

\(\boxed{\sqrt{s} = \sqrt{M^2 + 2E_\gamma M}}\)

(b) Threshold condition \(\sqrt{s} = M + 2m_e\):

\(M^2 + 2E_\gamma M = (M + 2m_e)^2 = M^2 + 4Mm_e + 4m_e^2\)

\(E_\gamma^{\min} = \frac{4Mm_e + 4m_e^2}{2M} = 2m_e + \frac{2m_e^2}{M}\)

Approximation for \(M \gg m_e\): \(\boxed{E_\gamma^{\min} \approx 2m_e}\)

(c) Numerical value:

In the limit \(M \to \infty\), \(E_\gamma^{\min} = 2m_e = 2 \times 0.511 = 1.022\ \mathrm{MeV}\)

\(\boxed{E_\gamma^{\min} \approx 1.022\ \mathrm{MeV}}\)

Physical interpretation: The nucleus exists solely as a "recoil partner" to satisfy momentum conservation. When its mass is sufficiently large, it carries away virtually no energy, so pair production occurs when the photon energy equals exactly the rest energy of the electron-positron pair, \(2m_e c^2\). In vacuum (without a recoil partner), pair production is forbidden by the requirement of momentum conservation.

B-6. Index Contraction Practice

→ Back to problem

(a) \(\eta^{\mu\nu}\eta_{\mu\nu}\):

\(\eta^{\mu\nu}\eta_{\mu\nu} = \delta^\mu{}_\mu = 4\) (the dimension of spacetime)

\(\boxed{\eta^{\mu\nu}\eta_{\mu\nu} = 4}\)

(b) \(\partial_\mu x^\mu\):

\(\partial_\mu x^\mu = \partial_\mu x^\nu \cdot \delta^\mu_\nu = \delta^\mu_\mu = 4\)

Alternatively, writing it out explicitly: \(\partial_0 x^0 + \partial_1 x^1 + \partial_2 x^2 + \partial_3 x^3 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4\)

\(\boxed{\partial_\mu x^\mu = 4}\)

(c) The d'Alembert operator \(\Box\phi\):

\(\eta^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\partial_\nu = \eta^{00}\partial_0^2 + \eta^{11}\partial_1^2 + \eta^{22}\partial_2^2 + \eta^{33}\partial_3^2 = \partial_0^2 - \partial_1^2 - \partial_2^2 - \partial_3^2\)

\(\boxed{\Box\phi = \frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial(x^0)^2} - \frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial(x^1)^2} - \frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial(x^2)^2} - \frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial(x^3)^2}}\)

Or \(\Box = \partial_t^2 - \nabla^2\) (in natural units \(c = 1\), \(x^0 = t\)).

Verification: The Klein-Gordon equation \((\Box + m^2)\phi = 0\) for a plane wave \(\phi = e^{-ip \cdot x}\) reduces to \((-p^\mu p_\mu + m^2) = 0\), i.e., \(p^\mu p_\mu = m^2\) (the mass-shell condition).

B-7. Sense of Scale

→ Back to problem

Scale Value eV equivalent
(a) \(m_e c^2\) \(0.511\ \mathrm{MeV}\) \(5.11 \times 10^5\ \mathrm{eV}\)
(b) \(m_H c^2\) \(125\ \mathrm{GeV}\) \(1.25 \times 10^{11}\ \mathrm{eV}\)
(c) CMB photon \(k_B T \approx 8.617 \times 10^{-5} \times 2.725\) \(\approx 2.35 \times 10^{-4}\ \mathrm{eV}\)
(d) LHC \(13\ \mathrm{TeV}\) \(1.3 \times 10^{13}\ \mathrm{eV}\)

In descending order:

\(\boxed{\text{LHC}\ (10^{13}) > m_H\ (10^{11}) > m_e\ (10^{5.7}) > \text{CMB}\ (10^{-3.6})}\)

Span: With the highest at \(10^{13}\) eV and the lowest at \(10^{-4}\) eV, the difference is approximately 17 orders of magnitude. This still falls short of the "40 orders of magnitude" mentioned in the text. The 40 orders of magnitude difference can be reached by including, for example, the Planck scale (\(10^{28}\) eV, see S4) and the neutron decay constant (energy resolution on the order of \(10^{-25}\) eV).

Medium

M-1. Uncertainty Principle and Particle Number Change

→ Back to problem

(a) Critical length \(\Delta x_c\):

From a relativistic perspective, the momentum uncertainty is \(\Delta p \gtrsim \hbar/\Delta x\). The corresponding energy uncertainty is \(\Delta E \gtrsim c\Delta p \gtrsim \hbar c/\Delta x\) (ultra-relativistic regime).

The condition for the energy to exceed \(mc^2\):

\(\frac{\hbar c}{\Delta x} \gtrsim mc^2 \quad\Rightarrow\quad \Delta x \lesssim \frac{\hbar}{mc}\)

The right-hand side is precisely the Compton wavelength \(\lambda_C = \hbar/(mc)\):

\(\boxed{\Delta x_c = \lambda_C = \frac{\hbar}{mc}}\)

(b) Inevitability of particle number change:

When \(\Delta x < \lambda_C\), we have \(\Delta E > mc^2\), and within the range of energy uncertainty, virtual particle-antiparticle pairs of mass \(m\) can be created (energy fluctuations of order \(E = mc^2\) are permitted). This is "vacuum fluctuation"—the dynamical fluctuation of the vacuum as the ground state of a field.

In single-particle quantum mechanics (the Schrödinger equation), the number of particles is treated as a conserved constant, but in the regime \(\Delta x < \lambda_C\), this assumption breaks down, and a framework capable of describing the creation and annihilation of new particle pairs is required → quantum field theory.

(c) Compton wavelength of the electron:

\(\lambda_C = \frac{\hbar c}{m_e c^2} = \frac{197\ \mathrm{MeV}\cdot\mathrm{fm}}{0.511\ \mathrm{MeV}} \approx 386\ \mathrm{fm} = 3.86 \times 10^{-13}\ \mathrm{m}\)

\(\boxed{\lambda_C \approx 386\ \mathrm{fm}}\)

Comparison and conclusion:

  • Atomic scale (\(\sim 10^5\ \mathrm{fm} = 0.1\ \mathrm{nm}\)): Since \(\Delta x \gg \lambda_C\), particle number fluctuations are negligible → can be described by ordinary quantum mechanics
  • Nuclear scale (\(\sim\) a few fm): Since \(\Delta x \lesssim \lambda_C\), particle number fluctuations are essential → quantum field theory is required

This boundary represents the physical threshold at which the transition from quantum mechanics to quantum field theory becomes inevitable.

Sanity check: \(\lambda_C\) can also be understood as "the length scale at which the electron and a photon carry the same energy." The fact that the Compton scattering formula \(\Delta\lambda = \lambda_C(1 - \cos\theta)\) directly uses \(\lambda_C\) shows that this is a quantity with direct experimental relevance.

M-2. String Vibrations and "Particles"

→ Back to problem

(a) d'Alembert equation:

\(\mu\partial_t^2\phi = T\partial_x^2\phi \quad\Rightarrow\quad \partial_t^2\phi - \frac{T}{\mu}\partial_x^2\phi = 0\)

Setting \(v = \sqrt{T/\mu}\):

\(\partial_t^2\phi - v^2\partial_x^2\phi = 0\)

Using the 1+1 dimensional d'Alembert operator \(\Box = \partial_t^2 - v^2\partial_x^2\) (with \(c\) replaced by \(v\)):

\(\boxed{\Box\phi = 0}\)

(b) Solution for a string fixed at both ends:

From the boundary conditions \(\phi(0,t) = \phi(L,t) = 0\), the spatial part takes the form \(\sin(n\pi x/L)\):

\(\phi(x,t) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty q_n(t)\sin\!\left(\frac{n\pi x}{L}\right)\)

Substituting into \(\Box\phi = 0\), each mode is a harmonic oscillator:

\(\ddot{q}_n(t) + \omega_n^2 q_n(t) = 0, \qquad \omega_n = \frac{n\pi v}{L}\)

\(\boxed{\omega_n = \frac{n\pi v}{L}, \quad n = 1, 2, 3, \ldots}\)

(c) Analogy as a prototype of quantum field theory:

Each vibrational mode \(n\) of the string is an independent one-dimensional harmonic oscillator. Upon quantizing the harmonic oscillator, the energy levels of the \(n\)-th mode are \(E_n = \hbar\omega_n(N_n + 1/2)\), where \(N_n\) is "the number of excitation quanta present in that mode."

In quantum field theory, the field \(\phi(x,t)\) is viewed as the "string," and vibrational modes \(n\) are placed in one-to-one correspondence with "momentum \(\mathbf{k}\)":

String Quantum Field Theory
Entire string \(\phi(x,t)\) Scalar field \(\phi(x)\)
Vibrational mode \(n\) Momentum mode \(\mathbf{k}\)
Mode frequency \(\omega_n = n\pi v/L\) $\omega_\mathbf{k} = \sqrt{
Mode quantum number \(N_n\) Particle number \(N_\mathbf{k}\)
Mode energy \(\hbar\omega_n(N_n + 1/2)\) Mode energy \(\omega_\mathbf{k}(N_\mathbf{k} + 1/2)\)

Connection to the main text: Lina's explanation that "vibrational modes of a field are particles" corresponds precisely to the fact that each vibrational mode of the string is a harmonic oscillator, and its excitation quanta (\(N_n\)) correspond to particles. In string theory (The Quest for Quantum Gravity), this is boldly extended so that these vibrational modes correspond to "various particle species (particles with different masses and spins)."

M-3. Falsifiability and Precision Agreement

→ Back to problem

(a) Numerical value of the lowest-order term:

\(\frac{\alpha}{2\pi} = \frac{1}{2\pi \times 137.036} = \frac{1}{861.02} \approx 1.1614 \times 10^{-3}\)

\(\boxed{\alpha/(2\pi) \approx 0.001161}\) (4 significant figures)

Agreement with the experimental value \(a_e \approx 0.001160\):

The lowest-order term \(0.001161\) and the experimental value \(0.001160\) agree up to \(1.16 \times 10^{-3}\). This lowest-order term alone, which Schwinger (1948) computed by hand, reproduces more than 99.9% of the experimental value.

(b) Significance of computing higher-order terms (from the perspective of falsifiability):

Although the lowest-order term already accounts for the bulk of the experimental value, this does not establish that "QED is correct." As experimental measurement precision improves, contributions from higher-order terms (\(\alpha^2\), \(\alpha^3\), …) appear at deeper decimal places. If the predictions from higher-order terms deviate from the experimental value, this constitutes evidence that the QED model is missing some unknown physical effect (for example, loop contributions from undiscovered particles), necessitating modification or extension of the model. Conversely, if agreement continues to all orders, the reliability of QED is guaranteed to that level of precision. "Can be calculated → can be predicted → can be tested → the model's reliability either increases or the model is rejected"—it is precisely this falsifiability that makes QED a science rather than a mere philosophical assertion.

(c) Response to the hypothetical scenario (disagreement at the 15th digit):

This should be interpreted not as "it is wrong" but as "the limits of its applicability have become visible." Just as Newtonian mechanics remains perfectly valid at low speeds and macroscopic scales even after the advent of relativity and quantum mechanics, QED remains valid within the range of measured digits. Even if disagreement appears at the 15th digit, this does not constitute a wholesale rejection of QED but rather means that "effects from a deeper theory (for example, the Standard Model, or beyond that a grand unified theory, or further still quantum gravity) have begun to manifest at that level of precision." The philosophy of science stance presented in the text is that "models are always hypotheses with a domain of validity, and as precision improves, steps toward more fundamental theories become visible"—disagreement at the 15th digit is precisely part of that process.

M-4. Dimensional Analysis of Planck Scales

→ Back to problem

(a) Derivation of the Planck mass:

Let \(M_P = G^a \hbar^b c^d\) and determine the exponents from the dimension \([M_P] = \mathrm{kg}\).

Dimension table:

\([G] = \mathrm{m^3\,kg^{-1}\,s^{-2}}, \quad [\hbar] = \mathrm{kg\,m^2\,s^{-1}}, \quad [c] = \mathrm{m\,s^{-1}}\)

\([G^a \hbar^b c^d] = \mathrm{m}^{3a+2b+d}\,\mathrm{kg}^{-a+b}\,\mathrm{s}^{-2a-b-d}\)

For the dimension to be \(\mathrm{kg}\) only: \(3a + 2b + d = 0\), \(-a + b = 1\), \(-2a - b - d = 0\)

From the 2nd equation: \(b = 1 + a\). Substituting into the 1st equation: \(3a + 2(1 + a) + d = 0 \Rightarrow d = -5a - 2\). Substituting into the 3rd equation: \(-2a - (1 + a) - (-5a - 2) = 0 \Rightarrow 2a + 1 = 0 \Rightarrow a = -1/2\). Therefore \(b = 1/2\), \(d = 1/2\).

\(\boxed{M_P = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar c}{G}}}\)

(b) Planck length and Planck time:

Following the same procedure (or deriving directly from dimensional relations):

\(\boxed{\ell_P = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^3}}, \qquad t_P = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^5}}}\)

Relations: \(\ell_P = c \cdot t_P\), \(\ell_P = \hbar/(M_P c)\) (the Compton wavelength of the Planck mass), \(t_P = \ell_P/c\).

(c) Numerical values:

  • \(M_P = \sqrt{\frac{1.055 \times 10^{-34} \times 3.0 \times 10^8}{6.674 \times 10^{-11}}} = \sqrt{\frac{3.165 \times 10^{-26}}{6.674 \times 10^{-11}}} = \sqrt{4.74 \times 10^{-16}} \approx 2.18 \times 10^{-8}\ \mathrm{kg}\)

  • \(\ell_P = \sqrt{\frac{1.055 \times 10^{-34} \times 6.674 \times 10^{-11}}{(3.0 \times 10^8)^3}} = \sqrt{\frac{7.04 \times 10^{-45}}{2.7 \times 10^{25}}} = \sqrt{2.61 \times 10^{-70}} \approx 1.62 \times 10^{-35}\ \mathrm{m}\)

  • \(t_P = \ell_P/c = \frac{1.62 \times 10^{-35}}{3.0 \times 10^8} \approx 5.39 \times 10^{-44}\ \mathrm{s}\)

\(\boxed{M_P \approx 2.18 \times 10^{-8}\ \mathrm{kg}, \quad \ell_P \approx 1.62 \times 10^{-35}\ \mathrm{m}, \quad t_P \approx 5.39 \times 10^{-44}\ \mathrm{s}}\)

(d) Conversion to GeV and comparison with the LHC:

\(M_P c^2 = 2.18 \times 10^{-8} \times (3.0 \times 10^8)^2 = 2.18 \times 10^{-8} \times 9.0 \times 10^{16} = 1.96 \times 10^9\ \mathrm{J}\)

\(\frac{1.96 \times 10^9}{1.602 \times 10^{-10}} \approx 1.22 \times 10^{19}\ \mathrm{eV} = 1.22 \times 10^{10}\ \mathrm{GeV}\)

\(\boxed{M_P c^2 \approx 1.22 \times 10^{19}\ \mathrm{GeV} = 1.22 \times 10^{16}\ \mathrm{TeV}}\)

Ratio to the LHC (13 TeV):

\(\frac{M_P c^2}{\sqrt{s}_{\mathrm{LHC}}} = \frac{1.22 \times 10^{16}}{13} \approx 10^{15}\)

Discussion:

The Planck scale is approximately \(10^{15}\) times higher than the LHC. When gravity is naively incorporated into quantum field theory, the gravitational coupling strength grows with energy and the perturbative expansion breaks down near the Planck scale. There is no prospect of directly reaching this energy regime experimentally, so we must rely on the internal consistency of the theory itself to probe this frontier.

Advanced

A-1. Indistinguishability of Identical Particles (A Consequence in Quantum Field Theory)

→ Back to problem

(a) Treatment in quantum mechanics (postulate):

In quantum mechanics, the wave function of identical particles (e.g., two electrons) must be symmetric for bosons and antisymmetric for fermions, based on the requirement that "exchanging the positions of particles 1 and 2 yields a physically indistinguishable state." This is imposed by hand at the level of wave function construction as the symmetrization postulate. That is, in quantum mechanics, when constructing a two-particle wave function, one is axiomatically required to symmetrize/antisymmetrize as \(|\psi_1\rangle \otimes |\psi_2\rangle + \epsilon |\psi_2\rangle \otimes |\psi_1\rangle\) (\(\epsilon = +1\) for bosons, \(\epsilon = -1\) for fermions).

(b) Automatic derivation of boson indistinguishability:

From the commutation relation \([\hat{a}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_1}, \hat{a}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_2}] = \hat{a}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_1}\hat{a}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_2} - \hat{a}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_2}\hat{a}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_1} = 0\):

\(\hat{a}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_1}\hat{a}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_2} = \hat{a}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_2}\hat{a}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_1}\)

Acting on the vacuum:

\(|\mathbf{p}_1, \mathbf{p}_2\rangle = \hat{a}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_1}\hat{a}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_2}|0\rangle = \hat{a}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_2}\hat{a}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_1}|0\rangle = |\mathbf{p}_2, \mathbf{p}_1\rangle\)

\(\boxed{|\mathbf{p}_1, \mathbf{p}_2\rangle = |\mathbf{p}_2, \mathbf{p}_1\rangle}\)

(c) Antisymmetry of fermions and the Pauli exclusion principle:

From the anticommutation relation \(\{\hat{b}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_1,s_1}, \hat{b}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_2,s_2}\} = \hat{b}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_1,s_1}\hat{b}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_2,s_2} + \hat{b}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_2,s_2}\hat{b}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_1,s_1} = 0\):

\(\hat{b}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_1,s_1}\hat{b}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_2,s_2} = -\hat{b}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_2,s_2}\hat{b}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_1,s_1}\)

Therefore, the two-fermion state:

\(|\mathbf{p}_1 s_1, \mathbf{p}_2 s_2\rangle = \hat{b}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_1,s_1}\hat{b}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_2,s_2}|0\rangle = -\hat{b}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_2,s_2}\hat{b}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p}_1,s_1}|0\rangle = -|\mathbf{p}_2 s_2, \mathbf{p}_1 s_1\rangle\)

Antisymmetric under exchange. Furthermore, when \(\mathbf{p}_1 = \mathbf{p}_2\), \(s_1 = s_2\), from the anticommutation relation \(\{A, A\} = 2A^2 = 0 \Rightarrow A^2 = 0\):

\((\hat{b}^\dagger_{\mathbf{p},s})^2|0\rangle = 0\)

\(\boxed{\text{Two fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state (Pauli exclusion principle)}}\)

(d) Shift in worldview (approximately 300 characters):

In quantum mechanics, symmetrization/antisymmetrization was required to be "imposed by hand" when constructing two-particle wave functions. This is the symmetrization postulate, and a postulate is a provisional requirement that "agrees with experiment when assumed." In quantum field theory, particles are not independent entities but quantum excitations of fields, and excitation quanta created from the same mode of the same field are inherently indistinguishable from the moment of their creation. Simply by incorporating the algebraic structure of commutation relations (bosons) / anticommutation relations (fermions) of creation operators into the framework of field quantization, symmetry, antisymmetry, and the Pauli exclusion principle are automatically derived as consequences. This shift—where a postulate is demoted to a theorem—quantitatively demonstrates the change in worldview from "particles are the fundamental entities" to "fields are the fundamental entities." Furthermore, the spin-statistics theorem determines which fields are quantized with commutation relations and which with anticommutation relations, based on the Lorentz transformation properties of the field.

A-2. Dimensional Analysis of the Gravitational Coupling Constant and Non-Renormalizability

→ Back to problem

(a) Dimension of the QED coupling constant \(e\):

Each factor in \(\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{int}} = -e\,\bar{\psi}\gamma^\mu\psi\,A_\mu\):

  • \([\bar{\psi}\psi] = [\psi]^2 = [\text{mass}]^{3}\)
  • \([\gamma^\mu] = [\text{mass}]^0\) (dimensionless constant matrices)
  • \([A_\mu] = [\text{mass}]^1\)

Therefore \([\bar{\psi}\gamma^\mu\psi A_\mu] = [\text{mass}]^{3+0+1} = [\text{mass}]^4\). Since \([\mathcal{L}] = [\text{mass}]^4\):

\([e] = [\text{mass}]^{4-4} = [\text{mass}]^0\)

\(\boxed{[e] = 0 \quad(\text{dimensionless})}\)

(b) Dimensions of the gravitational constant \(G\) and \(\kappa\):

In the Einstein-Hilbert action \(S_{\mathrm{EH}} = \frac{1}{16\pi G}\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\,R\), we have \([d^4x] = [\text{mass}]^{-4}\), \([R] = [\text{mass}]^2\), \([\sqrt{-g}] = [\text{mass}]^0\), \([S] = 0\):

\(0 = [G]^{-1} \cdot [\text{mass}]^{-4} \cdot [\text{mass}]^2 \quad\Rightarrow\quad [G]^{-1} = [\text{mass}]^{2}\)

\(\boxed{[G] = [\text{mass}]^{-2}}\)

\(\kappa = \sqrt{32\pi G}\):

\(\boxed{[\kappa] = [G]^{1/2} = [\text{mass}]^{-1}}\)

(c) Renormalizability classification:

Coupling constant Mass dimension \(\delta\) Classification
\(e\) (QED) \(0\) Renormalizable
\(G\) (gravity) \(-2\) Non-renormalizable
\(\kappa\) (linearized gravitational coupling) \(-1\) Non-renormalizable

(d) Why quantizing gravity requires a framework beyond quantum field theory (brief explanation):

In a non-renormalizable theory (\(\delta < 0\)), new types of divergences (with increasingly higher momentum powers) appear at each loop order, requiring infinitely many counterterms to absorb them. Since these cannot be controlled by a finite number of parameters, the theory loses its predictive power. The fundamental reason why \([G] = [\text{mass}]^{-2}\) in quantum gravity traces back to the fact that gravity describes "the geometry of spacetime itself," so higher-dimensional quantities (higher derivatives of the Ricci tensor) combine with the coupling constant to proliferate divergences. The idea of string theory—where Rina explained in the main text that "point particles are replaced by strings with finite extent"—structurally alleviates these UV divergences. The spatial extent of strings (\(\sim \ell_s\)) softens interactions at high momenta (\(\mathbf{k} \gg 1/\ell_s\)), circumventing the barrier of non-renormalizability inherent to quantum field theory. This is the core reason why quantizing gravity requires a framework that goes beyond quantum field theory.