Confusing integral in Zee's QFT

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the transition from equation (4) to (5) in Zee's QFT, specifically regarding the integral W(J). The confusion arises from how the middle term, which involves a delta function, disappears and how the expression k^2 - m^2 + iε simplifies to ω^2 = k^2 + m^2. It is clarified that integrating over y^0 first produces a delta function δ(k^0), which sets k^0 to zero upon further integration. This leads to the simplification of k^2 - m^2 into a manageable form, ultimately resolving the initial confusion. The participants confirm that the steps taken make sense after careful consideration.
waht
Messages
1,499
Reaction score
4
This is probably really simple. In chapter I.4 the jump from (4) -> (5) is sort of eluding

W(J) = - \iint dx^0 dy^0 \int \frac{dk^0}{2\pi} e^{i k^0(x - y)^0} \int \frac{d^3k}{(2 \pi)^3} \frac{e^{i \vec{k}(\vec{x_1} - \vec{x_2})}} {k^2 - m^2 + i\epsilon}

and

\omega^2 = \vec{k}^2 + m^2


He got

W(J) = \int dx^0 \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{e^{i \vec{k} (\vec{x_1} - \vec{x_2})}}{\vec{k}^2 + m^2}


the way I see it - the middle term is the delta function

W(J) = - \iint dx^0 dy^0 \delta(x^0 - y^0) \int \frac{d^3k}{(2 \pi)^3} \frac{e^{i \vec{k}(\vec{x_1} - \vec{x_2})}} {k^2 - m^2 + i\epsilon}

but how does it disappear, and how does

k^2 - m^2 + i\epsilon turn into

\vec{k}^2 + m^2

k^0 would be the \omega

but somehow this doesn't add up.

so just wondering if anyone could give a pointer on how to solve this
 
Physics news on Phys.org
<br /> W(J) = - \iint dx^0 dy^0 \int \frac{dk^0}{2\pi} e^{i k^0(x - y)^0} \int \frac{d^3k}{(2 \pi)^3} \frac{e^{i \vec{k}(\vec{x_1} - \vec{x_2})}} {k^2 - m^2 + i\epsilon} <br />

To do this integral, he integrated over y0 first. That produces a delta function \delta(k_0). Then he integrated over k0, and because of the delta function, this just sets k0 equal to zero everywhere.

k^2-m^2 if written out is k0^2-k^2-m^2, so if k0 is zero, then that writes out to -(k^2+m^2), which cancels the negative sign.
 
Took a while to convince myself, but yes it makes sense. Thanks.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
827
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K