Classical limit from steepest descent

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jhaber
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Classical Limit
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the application of the method of steepest descent as outlined in Zee's quantum field theory text, specifically in section I.2 and appendix Eq. 28. The user expresses difficulty in understanding the transition of a square root factor involving f'' in the denominator during the application of this method to derive the classical limit of the path-integral formulation. Despite challenges with terminology such as "spinor" and matrix transitions, the user is making progress and recognizes the importance of Lagrange's equation in the context.

PREREQUISITES
  • Familiarity with quantum field theory concepts
  • Understanding of the method of steepest descent
  • Knowledge of path-integral formulation
  • Basic grasp of Lagrange's equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the method of steepest descent in detail
  • Review the path-integral formulation in quantum mechanics
  • Explore the significance of spinors in quantum field theory
  • Analyze Lagrange's equations and their applications in physics
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in theoretical physics, particularly those studying quantum field theory and seeking to understand advanced mathematical techniques such as the method of steepest descent.

jhaber
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I'm trying Zee's quantum field theory text as self-study (I'm years out of college) and about 100 pages into it. I can usually get something on the second or third reading. Oddly, one thing that keeps resisting me is quite early. In I.2, he says to apply an appendix on the method of steepest descent (Eq. 28) to get the classical limit of the path-integral formulation. I can follow the appendix but not its application. I believe I'm hung up on what happened to the factor, a square root, containing f'' in the denominator.

Thanks. A lot goes by quickly, with calculations left to the reader, and I'll try to keep questions to a bare minimum and, as here, as a last resort after a couple of weeks. Just the other day, say, it took me a bit to realize in II.1 what a spinor was, since it wasn't explicitly stated and to follow the transitions on p. 94, which began with a squared matrix producing a number (1) before formally shifting to its being a matrix giving the unit matrix. But I'm slowly getting things.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't see where that factor has gotten to either. Perhaps he simply neglected writing it down, since it doesn't really matter to the point he wants to make.
 
Ah, thanks. Good way of looking at it. As long as Lagrange's equation comes out of it, we win.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
8K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K