Help With Proving Peskin and Schroeder Eq. 2.33

  • Thread starter Thread starter Norman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a specific equation from Peskin and Schroeder, specifically equation 2.33, which involves concepts from quantum field theory. The original poster is attempting to manipulate integrals involving field operators and delta functions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster describes their approach of rewriting fields in momentum space and performing integrals, leading to a delta function. They express uncertainty about how certain operator terms cancel out to achieve the desired result.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with the original poster seeking hints or guidance on their approach. Some participants have noted issues with LaTeX formatting, which may affect clarity in presenting mathematical expressions.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of LaTeX not functioning properly initially, which could hinder the discussion of mathematical details. The original poster's inquiry is not strictly homework, indicating a broader interest in understanding the material.

Norman
Messages
895
Reaction score
4
I am unsure if this is the proper forum for this, since it is not actually homework... but here goes anyway.

I am trying to Prove Peskin and Schroeder equation 2.33


P=-\int d^3 x \pi (x) \nabla \phi (x) = \int \frac{d^3 x}{(2 \pi)^3} p a^{\dagger}_p a_p

so far what I have done:
written the fields as the momentum space quantities, done the integral over the spatial coordinates to give me the delta function and integrated over the p' variables to give me this:

The last step forces p'=-p

\int \frac{d^3}{(2 \pi)^3} \frac{p}{2} (a^{\dagger}_{-p} a_{-p} + a^{\dagger}_{-p} a^{\dagger}_p - a_p a_{-p} - a_p a^{\dagger}_p )

I don't see how these operators cancel out to give :
() = 2a^{\dagger}_p a_p

Any help would be greatly appreciated... even just a hint would be very helpfull.
Thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Why isn't the latex coming up?
 
LaTeX seems to be broken - hope they get it fixed soon!
 
Now that LaTeX works...

Anyone able to lend a hand?
 

Similar threads

Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K