1187 words
6 minutes
Weinberg–Witten theorem

Statement of the Theorem#

The Weinberg–Witten theorem has two separate parts.

Current Version#

If a Lorentz-covariant conserved current Jμ(x)J^\mu(x) exists, so that the global charge Q=∫ d3xJ0Q=\int\,d^3xJ^0 is well defined and transforms covariantly (Appendix A), then the theory cannot contain a massless one-particle state of helicity h>1/2h\gt 1/2 that carries nonzero charge qq under QQ. In other words, there are no charged massless particles with spin >1/2\gt 1/2.

Stress-energy Version#

If there is a Lorentz-covariant, conserved stress-energy tensor Tμν(x)T^{\mu\nu}(x), so that the 4-momentum Pμ=∫ d3xT0μP^\mu=\int\,d^3xT^{0\mu} is well defined and covariant, then the theory cannot contain a massless one-particle state of helicity h>1h\gt1 that carries nonzero momentum charge, i.e. a particle that transforms nontrivially under translations. In other words, a massless particle of helicity >1\gt 1 cannot have a Lorentz-covariant energy-momentum current.

Proof:#

Assume a covariant conserved current JμJ^\mu exists and that there is a massless one-particle state ∣p,h⟩|p, h\rangle with helicity h>1/2h\gt 1/2 carrying charge qq under QQ. We will show that this leads to a contradiction. We are going to achieve this by first computing a matrix element:

⟨p′,h′∣Q^∣p,h⟩=∫ d3x⟨p′,h′∣J0(0,x)∣p,h⟩=∫ d3x⟨p′,h′∣eip^⋅x^J0(0,0)e−ip^⋅x^∣p,h⟩p^,x^ acting on the states=∫ d3xei(p−p′)⋅x⏟Fourier Transform⟨p′,h′∣J0(0,0)∣p,h⟩=(2π)3δ(3)(p−p′)⟨p′,h′∣J0(0,0)∣p,h⟩.\begin{align} \langle p', h'|\hat{Q}|p, h\rangle &=\int\,d^3x\langle p', h'|J^0(0, \mathbf{x})|p, h\rangle\\ &=\int\,d^3x\langle p', h'|e^{i\hat{\mathbf{p}}\cdot\hat{\mathbf{x}}}J^0(0, \mathbf{0})e^{-i\hat{\mathbf{p}}\cdot\hat{\mathbf{x}}}|p, h\rangle \quad \text{$\hat{\mathbf{p}}, \hat{\mathbf{x}}$ acting on the states}\\ &=\underbrace{\int\,d^3xe^{i(\mathbf{p}-\mathbf{p'})\cdot\mathbf{x}}}_{\text{Fourier Transform}}\langle p', h'|J^0(0, \mathbf{0})|p, h\rangle\\ &=(2\pi)^3\delta^{(3)}(\mathbf{p}-\mathbf{p'})\langle p', h'|J^0(0, \mathbf{0})|p, h\rangle. \end{align}

Since Q^∣p,h⟩=q∣p,h⟩\hat{Q}|p, h\rangle=q|p, h\rangle (usually qq is omitted in the state description because it is conserved by assumption), ⟨p′,h′∣Q^∣p,h⟩=qδ(3)(p−p′)δhh′\langle p', h'|\hat{Q}|p, h\rangle=q\delta^{(3)}(\mathbf{p}-\mathbf{p'})\delta_{hh'}. Then, comparing both sides,

⟨p′,h′∣J0(0,0)∣p,h⟩=q(2π)3δhh′\begin{equation} \langle p', h'|J^0(0, \mathbf{0})|p, h\rangle=\frac{q}{(2\pi)^3}\delta_{hh'} \end{equation}

where the value is divided by (2π)3(2\pi)^3 for the normalization. Now extend this to the four-vector (Appendix B):

⟨p′,h′∣Jμ(0)∣p,h⟩→p′→pqpμ(2π)3p0δhh′.\begin{equation} \langle p', h'|J^\mu(0)|p, h\rangle \xrightarrow{p' \to p} \frac{qp^\mu}{(2\pi)^3p^0}\delta_{hh'}. \end{equation}

Next, let’s see what rotational invariance has to say about the same matrix element. The plan is the following. The limit above tells us that the matrix element must survive as p′→pp'\to p. We will show that for h>1/2h\gt 1/2 Lorentz covariance forces it to vanish, and the two statements cannot coexist unless q=0q=0. Note that the δhh′\delta_{hh'} obtained above allows us to set h′=hh'=h from now on.

Take two lightlike momenta p≠p′p\neq p' that are not collinear. Their sum is then timelike, since

(p+p′)2=2p⋅p′≠0,\begin{equation} (p+p')^2=2p\cdot p'\neq 0, \end{equation}

so we can go to the center-of-momentum frame in which the two spatial momenta are back to back:

p′=−p,z^≡p^.\begin{equation} \mathbf{p}'=-\mathbf{p}, \quad \hat{\mathbf{z}}\equiv\hat{\mathbf{p}}. \end{equation}

Now perform a rotation RθR_\theta by an angle θ\theta about this common axis. A massless one-particle state is a helicity eigenstate, and a rotation about its own momentum direction produces only a phase:

U(Rθ)∣p,h⟩=eihθ∣p,h⟩.\begin{equation} U(R_\theta)|p, h\rangle=e^{ih\theta}|p, h\rangle. \end{equation}

For the primed state the same rotation is a rotation by −θ-\theta about p^′=−p^\hat{\mathbf{p}}'=-\hat{\mathbf{p}}, hence

U(Rθ)∣p′,h⟩=e−ihθ∣p′,h⟩.\begin{equation} U(R_\theta)|p', h\rangle=e^{-ih\theta}|p', h\rangle. \end{equation}

The two phases do not cancel between the bra and the ket — they add up. Inserting U†(Rθ)U(Rθ)=1U^\dagger(R_\theta)U(R_\theta)=1 on both sides of the current and using that JμJ^\mu transforms as a four-vector, U(Rθ)Jμ(0)U†(Rθ)=(Rθ−1)νμJν(0)U(R_\theta)J^\mu(0)U^\dagger(R_\theta)=(R_\theta^{-1})^\mu_\nu J^\nu(0),

⟨p′,h∣Jμ(0)∣p,h⟩=⟨p′,h∣U†(Rθ)(U(Rθ)Jμ(0)U†(Rθ))U(Rθ)∣p,h⟩=eihθ eihθ (Rθ−1)νμ⟨p′,h∣Jν(0)∣p,h⟩=e2ihθ(Rθ−1)νμ⟨p′,h∣Jν(0)∣p,h⟩,\begin{align} \langle p', h|J^\mu(0)|p, h\rangle &=\langle p', h|U^\dagger(R_\theta)\big(U(R_\theta)J^\mu(0)U^\dagger(R_\theta)\big)U(R_\theta)|p, h\rangle\\ &=e^{ih\theta}\,e^{ih\theta}\,(R_\theta^{-1})^\mu_\nu\langle p', h|J^\nu(0)|p, h\rangle\\ &=e^{2ih\theta}(R_\theta^{-1})^\mu_\nu\langle p', h|J^\nu(0)|p, h\rangle, \end{align}

or, equivalently,

(Rθ)νμ⟨p′,h∣Jν(0)∣p,h⟩=e2ihθ⟨p′,h∣Jμ(0)∣p,h⟩.\begin{equation} (R_\theta)^\mu_\nu\langle p', h|J^\nu(0)|p, h\rangle=e^{2ih\theta}\langle p', h|J^\mu(0)|p, h\rangle. \end{equation}

Read as a statement of linear algebra, this says that the four-component object ⟨p′,h∣Jμ(0)∣p,h⟩\langle p', h|J^\mu(0)|p, h\rangle is an eigenvector of the rotation matrix RθR_\theta with eigenvalue e2ihθe^{2ih\theta}. But a rotation about the zz-axis acting on a four-vector has eigenvalues

{1,1,eiθ,e−iθ},\begin{equation} \{1, 1, e^{i\theta}, e^{-i\theta}\}, \end{equation}

where the first two belong to the tt and zz components and the last two to the combinations J1∓iJ2J^1\mp iJ^2. A nonvanishing matrix element therefore requires

e2ihθ∈{1,eiθ,e−iθ}for all θ,\begin{equation} e^{2ih\theta}\in\{1, e^{i\theta}, e^{-i\theta}\} \quad \text{for all } \theta, \end{equation}

i.e. ∣2h∣≤1|2h|\le 1. For h>1/2h\gt 1/2 none of the eigenvalues can be matched, so every component must vanish:

⟨p′,h∣Jμ(0)∣p,h⟩=0for all non-collinear p≠p′.\begin{equation} \langle p', h|J^\mu(0)|p, h\rangle=0 \quad \text{for all non-collinear } p\neq p'. \end{equation}

Taking the limit p′→pp'\to p of this vanishing quantity and comparing with the limit computed above, we are forced to conclude

qpμ(2π)3p0=0,\begin{equation} \frac{qp^\mu}{(2\pi)^3p^0}=0, \end{equation}

i.e. q=0q=0. This contradicts the assumption that the particle carries a nonzero charge, and the current version of the theorem follows. (Strictly speaking, the limit should be taken with wave packets rather than plane-wave states. This is how the original paper (References) handles it, and the conclusion is unchanged.)

■\blacksquare

The stress-energy version goes through the same steps with TμνT^{\mu\nu} in place of JμJ^\mu. The analogue of the limit above is

⟨p′,h∣Tμν(0)∣p,h⟩→p′→ppμpν(2π)3p0,\begin{equation} \langle p', h|T^{\mu\nu}(0)|p, h\rangle \xrightarrow{p' \to p} \frac{p^\mu p^\nu}{(2\pi)^3p^0}, \end{equation}

which cannot vanish, because this time the “charge” is the four-momentum itself and every particle carries it. On the other hand, TμνT^{\mu\nu} has two vector indices, so under the back-to-back rotation the eigenvalues now range over eikθe^{ik\theta} with k∈{0,±1,±2}k\in\{0, \pm1, \pm2\}, and a nonvanishing matrix element requires ∣2h∣≤2|2h|\le 2, i.e. h≤1h\le 1. Hence a massless particle of helicity h>1h\gt 1 — the graviton being the obvious candidate — cannot appear in any theory equipped with a Lorentz-covariant conserved stress-energy tensor.

■\blacksquare

It is worth pausing on why familiar theories evade the theorem. Gluons (h=1h=1) do carry color charge, but the color current of Yang–Mills theory is not gauge invariant, so no Lorentz-covariant conserved current satisfies the hypothesis. General relativity escapes the stress-energy version for a similar reason. The energy-momentum of the gravitational field cannot be localized covariantly, and the candidate currents are only pseudo-tensors. What the theorem genuinely forbids is an emergent, composite graviton in a Lorentz-invariant theory with a covariant conserved TμνT^{\mu\nu}. Any attempt at emergent gravity must therefore give up at least one of these assumptions.

Appendix A#

Let’s quickly check the covariance of the global charge. For that purpose, introduce a Cauchy hypersurface Σ\Sigma with surface element dΣμd\Sigma_\mu, which points normal to the hypersurface and whose magnitude is the volume element of the slice. For example, if Σ\Sigma is a constant-time slice with nμ=(1,0,0,0)n_\mu=(1, 0, 0, 0), then  dΣμ=nμ d3x=(d3x,0,0,0)\,d\Sigma_\mu=n_\mu\,d^3x=(d^3x,0,0,0). Using it, we can define the global charge as Q=∫ d3xJ0=∫Σ dΣμJμQ=\int\,d^3xJ^0=\int_{\Sigma}\,d\Sigma_{\mu}J^{\mu}. We are going to show the following two parts:

A.1 QQ is independent of the choice of Σ\Sigma#

Assuming locality of charges and fields, i.e. Q=∫ d3xJ0<∞Q=\int\,d^3xJ^0\lt\infty, and using the continuity equation ∂μJμ=0\partial_\mu J^\mu = 0,

Q(Σj)−Q(Σi)=∫Σj dΣμJμ−∫Σi dΣμJμ+0=∫Σj dΣμJμ+∫−Σi dΣμJμ+∫sides at infinitydΣμJμ⏟=0 if Jμ→0 as ∣x∣→∞=∫∂V dΣμJμby Gauss’s theorem=∫V d4x∂μJμby ∂μJμ=0=0.\begin{align} Q(\Sigma_j)-Q(\Sigma_i)&=\int_{\Sigma_j}\,d\Sigma_\mu J^\mu-\int_{\Sigma_i}\,d\Sigma_\mu J^\mu + 0\\ &=\int_{\Sigma_j}\,d\Sigma_\mu J^\mu + \int_{-\Sigma_i}\,d\Sigma_\mu J^\mu + \underbrace{\int_{\text{sides at infinity}} d\Sigma_\mu J^\mu}_{= 0 \text{ if } J^\mu \to 0\, \text{as}\, |x|\to \infty}\\ &=\int_{\partial V}\,d\Sigma_\mu J^\mu \quad \text{by Gauss's theorem}\\ &=\int_{V}\,d^4x\partial_\mu J^\mu \quad \text{by } \partial_\mu J^\mu = 0\\ &=0. \end{align}

Hence the global charge is independent of the choice of hypersurface.

A.2 Lorentz covariance of QQ#

Consider a Lorentz transformation x′μ=Λνμxνx'^\mu=\Lambda^\mu_\nu x^\nu and J′μ(x′)=ΛρμJρ(x)J'^\mu(x')=\Lambda^\mu_\rho J^\rho(x). Then

Q′=∫Σ′ dΣμ′J′μ(x′)=∫Σ(Λμν dΣν)(ΛρμJρ)=∫Σ dΣν(ΛμνΛρμ)⏟=δρνJρ=∫Σ dΣνJν=Q.\begin{align} Q'&=\int_{\Sigma'}\,d\Sigma'_\mu J'^\mu(x')\\ &=\int_{\Sigma}(\Lambda_\mu^\nu\,d\Sigma_\nu)(\Lambda^\mu_\rho J^\rho)\\ &=\int_{\Sigma}\,d\Sigma_\nu\underbrace{(\Lambda_\mu^\nu\Lambda_\rho^\mu)}_{=\delta^\nu_\rho}J^\rho\\ &=\int_{\Sigma}\,d\Sigma_\nu J^\nu\\ &=Q. \end{align}

Combining A.1 and A.2, the covariance of the global charge is proved.

Appendix B#

In the process of extending the J0J^0 result to the full JμJ^\mu expression, let us first introduce an important identity called the Ward–Takahashi identity.

B.1 Ward–Takahashi Identity#

We are going to show qμ⟨p′∣Jμ∣p⟩=0q_\mu\langle p'|J^\mu|p\rangle=0, with qμ=pμ−p′μq^\mu=p^\mu-p'^\mu, using the current conservation ∂μJμ=0\partial_\mu J^\mu=0. Observe

0=⟨p′∣∂μJμ(0)∣p⟩=⟨p′∣∂μ(ei(p−p′)⋅xJμ(0))∣p⟩=i(p−p′)μei(p−p′)⋅x⟨p′∣Jμ(0)∣p⟩+⟨p′∣ei(p−p′)⋅x∂μJμ(0)⏟=0∣p⟩=iqμei(p−p′)⋅x⏟≠0⟨p′∣Jμ(0)∣p⟩.\begin{align} 0 &=\langle p'|\partial_\mu J^\mu(0)|p\rangle\\ &=\langle p'|\partial_\mu (e^{i(p-p')\cdot x}J^\mu(0))|p\rangle\\ &=i(p-p')_\mu e^{i(p-p')\cdot x}\langle p'|J^\mu(0)|p\rangle + \langle p'|e^{i(p-p')\cdot x}\underbrace{\partial_\mu J^\mu(0)}_{=0}|p\rangle\\ &=iq_\mu \underbrace{e^{i(p-p')\cdot x}}_{\neq 0}\langle p'|J^\mu(0)|p\rangle. \end{align}

We can factor out the exponential factor to arrive at the identity.

B.2 Extending to the four-vector#

Given a massless one-particle state, Lorentz covariance and the available momenta imply that, for a fixed helicity, we can generally write the matrix element as:

⟨p′,h∣Jμ(0)∣p,h⟩=A(p,p′)pμ+B(p,p′)p′μ+C(p,p′)qμ\begin{equation} \langle p', h|J^\mu(0)|p, h\rangle =A(p, p')p^\mu + B(p, p')p'^\mu + C(p, p')q^\mu \end{equation}

with some coefficients A,B,CA, B, C and qμ=pμ−p′μq^\mu=p^\mu-p'^\mu.

References#

  1. S. Weinberg and E. Witten, “Limits on Massless Particles,” Phys. Lett. B 96 (1980) 59–62. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90212-9
Weinberg–Witten theorem
https://pomidori.github.io/posts/weinberg_witten_theorem/
Author
Midori Kato
Published at
2025-11-10
License
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0