4-point correlation in phi 4 to first order

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of a four-point correlation function in the context of quantum field theory, specifically focusing on the first order in the coupling constant lambda for 2-2 scattering processes. Participants explore variable substitutions in integrals and the implications for integration measures.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an integral expression involving four-point correlation and questions the treatment of integration measures when substituting variables.
  • Another participant asserts that the initial participant has not cheated and explains the process of integrating over fixed variables, leading to the energy-momentum conserving Dirac delta function.
  • A follow-up question is posed regarding the justification for holding a variable fixed during the substitution process.
  • A later reply clarifies that the variable x is not held fixed but is part of a change of variables, suggesting that a Hessian calculation would provide further insight.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no clear consensus on the treatment of the variable x during the substitution process, with participants expressing differing views on whether it can be considered fixed or not.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves complex variable substitutions and integration measures, which may depend on specific definitions and assumptions not fully explored in the posts.

jfy4
Messages
645
Reaction score
3
Hi,

Look at
[tex] \begin{align}<br /> & \int d^4 x d^4 x_1 d^4 x_2 d^4 x_3 d^4 x_4 \exp [i(p_1 x_1 + p_2 x_2 -k_1 x_3 -k_2 x_4)] \\<br /> & \times (-i\lambda)D(x_1-x)D(x_2-x)D(x_3-x)D(x_4-x)<br /> \end{align}[/tex]
for first order in lambda for 2-2 scattering. In Maggiore I am told to substitute [itex]y_i=x_i-x[/itex] as a variable substitution and then carry out the [itex]y_i[/itex] integrals. Fair enough, but what about the measures? [itex]y_i=x_i -x \rightarrow dy_i = dx_i -dx[/itex]. Surely [itex]x[/itex] isn't a constant, since the coupling point could be anywhere, then I should have a whole separate integral with [itex]-d^4 x[/itex], right? If I make the substitution while ignoring the measure for emphesis I get
[tex] \begin{align}<br /> & \int d^4 x d^4 x_1 d^4 x_2 d^4 x_3 d^4 x_4 \exp [i(p_1 (y_1+x) + p_2 (y_2+x) -k_1 (y_3+x) -k_2 (y_4+x))] \\<br /> & \times (-i\lambda)D(y_1)D(y_2)D(y_3)D(y_4)<br /> \end{align}[/tex]
now if I directly make the substitution [itex]d^4 x_i \rightarrow d^4 y_i[/itex] and integrate over [itex]y_i[/itex] I get
[tex] (-i\lambda) D(p_1)D(p_2)D(p_3)D(p_4) \int d^4 x \exp[i(p_1 + p_2 - k_1 -k_2)x][/tex]
which is precisely the next line of Maggiore, except I cheated, didn't I...? (Here [itex]D(p_i)[/itex] are the momentum space representation of the Feynman propagator.) What happened to my [itex]-d^4 x[/itex] when I make the variable substitution above? A point in the right direction would be lovely, thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have not cheated. Why do you come to this idea? You first integrate over the [itex]x_j[/itex] with [itex]j \in \{1,2,3,4\}[/itex] at fixed [itex]x[/itex]. Then indeed [itex]\mathrm{d}^4 x_j=\mathrm{d}^4 y_j[/itex]. After that the [itex]x[/itex] integral gives you the energy-momentum conserving Dirac [itex]\delta[/itex], i.e., [itex](2 \pi)^4 \delta^{(4)}(p_1+p_2-k_1-k_2)[/itex] as it should be. In this way you can derive the Feynman-diagram rules, which are directly in four-momentum space and much more convenient than always doing these Fourier integrals.:smile:
 
Thanks, I guess then my question is why is it okay for us to hold [itex]x[/itex] in [itex]y_i = x_i +x[/itex] fixed?
 
Hi,

You do not hold x fixed, it is just a change of variables, if you calculate explicitly the Hessian you will see.

Actually you must do this using the 5 variables, x, y1, y2, y3 and y4.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K