Correlation function poles in Peskin's derivation of LSZ formula

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the derivation of the LSZ formula as presented in Peskin and Schroeder's Chapter 7, focusing on the pole structure of correlation functions. Participants explore the implications of Fourier transforming n-point functions and the interpretation of denominators in terms of mass poles.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the assertion that the denominator in a specific equation can be expressed as \( p^2 - m^2_{\lambda} \), expressing confusion over the manipulation of integrals leading to this form.
  • Another participant provides a mathematical relationship showing that \( p^0 = E_{\textbf{p}}(\lambda) \) leads to the conclusion that \( p^2 - m_{\lambda}^2 = 0 \) at the pole.
  • A different participant discusses the nature of singularities, noting that if the masses correspond to one-particle states, the singularities are poles, while multiparticle states lead to branch cuts.
  • There is a clarification that the isolated pole corresponds to one-particle states, while a branch cut exists beyond the two-particle threshold, suggesting that the relationship holds at the isolated pole but not in the intervening region.
  • Another participant emphasizes the distinction between isolated poles and the continuum of multiparticle states, indicating a gap between the mass of one-particle states and the lightest multiparticle state.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the relationship between the denominator and the mass squared term. While some agree on the general behavior of poles and branch cuts, the discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific manipulation of terms in the derivation.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the relationship between the denominator and mass squared may not hold in certain regions, particularly between isolated poles and branch cuts, indicating limitations in the assumptions made during the discussion.

Fysicus
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi folks,

Been trying to fill some of the more formal gaps in my knowledge by tackling the more technical stuff in P&S Chapter 7. Their derivation of the LSZ formula is quite different to those of books like, say, Srednicki, as they basically Fourier transform the whole argument as I understand it to concentrate more interpreting the pole structure of a general correlation function.

My question is this - having Fourier transformed the n-point function with respect to one field co-ordinate:


\int d^4x e^{ip \cdot x} \left\langle \Omega \left| T{ \phi (x) \phi (z_{1}) \phi (z_{2}) ... } \right| \Omega \right\rangle

And splitting the x^{0} integral into three zones (I, II, III):


\int dx^{0} = \int^{\infty}_{T_{+}} dx^{0} + \int^{T_{+}}_{T_{-}} dx^{0} + \int^{T_{-}}_{\infty} dx^{0}

They insert a complete set of states from the interacting theory, and choose to evaluate region I and do the momentum integrals that come with that, along with the position integrals from our Fourier Transform to arrive at the very ugly Eq. 7.36:


\int_{I} d^4x e^{ip \cdot x} \left\langle \Omega \left| T{ \phi (x) \phi (z_{1}) \phi (z_{2}) ... } \right| \Omega \right\rangle = \sum \frac{1}{2E_\textbf{p}(\lambda)} \frac{i e^{i(p^{0}-E_{\textbf{p}}+i\epsilon)T_{+}}}{p^{0}-E_{\textbf{p}}+i \epsilon} \left\langle \Omega \left| \phi (0) \right| \lambda_{0} \right\rangle \left\langle \lambda_{\textbf{p}} \left| T \phi (z_{1}) \phi (z_{2}) \ldots \right| \Omega \right\rangle

Where the sum runs over the different mass states \lambda and the 'I' on the integral just means dx^{0} integrated over the region: \int^{\infty}_{T_{+}} dx^{0}.

At this point they state " the denominator is just that [as]p^2 - m^2_{\lambda} " . I can't see why this is the case - yes, the pole in p^{0} is in the same location as one of the poles in p^2 - m^2_{\lambda} , but since all the integrals are done I can't see any way to massage this into this form exactly (by that i mean playing with delta functions and the E).

In other words, how can this statement true? Are we to literally claim that:

<br /> \frac{1}{2E_\textbf{p}} \frac{1}{p^{0}-E_{\textbf{p}}+i\epsilon} = \frac{1}{p^{2}-m_{\lambda}^{2}} ?

Since, close to the pole, the exponential factor goes to 1, and the leftmost matrix element is the square root of the field strength renormalization factor \sqrt{Z}, do they just mean that this quantity has a pole with residue \sqrt{Z} at p^{0} = E_{\textbf{p}} much like the piece of the full propagator containing the mass singularities? Is this possibly what they mean by the next statement (7.37):


\int d^4x e^{ip \cdot x} \left\langle \Omega \left| T{ \phi (x) \phi (z_{1}) \phi (z_{2}) ... } \right| \Omega \right\rangle \sim \frac{i}{p^{2}-m^{2}+i\epsilon} \sqrt{Z} \left\langle \textbf{p} \left| T \phi (z_{1}) \ldots \right| \Omega \right\rangle

as

p^{0} \rightarrow +E_{\textbf{p}}

Had a look at the P&S questions reference thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=400073 , and it seems no-one has asked about this derivation before, so either I'm missing something, overthinking it, or any explanations might be useful to others for future reference. Cheers!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
$${p^0} = {E_{\bf{p}}}\left( \lambda \right) = \sqrt {{{\left| {\bf{p}} \right|}^2} + m_\lambda ^2} \,\, \Rightarrow \,\,\,{E_{\bf{p}}}\left( \lambda \right){p^0} - E_{\bf{p}}^2\left( \lambda \right) = {\left( {{p^0}} \right)^2} - {\left| {\bf{p}} \right|^2} - m_\lambda ^2 = {p^2} - m_\lambda ^2$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Hey p-brane, thanks for the reply.

So implicit in the first steps you make there is that at the pole region only:


p^{0} \rightarrow E_{\textbf{p}}

Basically you can argue 'backwards' and reinterpret E_{\textbf{p}}p^{0} where instead:


E_{\textbf{p}} \rightarrow p_{0}?

Or to write it another way,


2E_{\textbf{p}}(p^{0}-E_{\textbf{p}}) \rightarrow (p^{0}+E_{\textbf{p}})(p^{0}-E_{\textbf{p}})

Cheers!
 
Fysicus said:
they state " the denominator is just that [as]p^2 - m^2_{\lambda} " . I can't see why this is the case - yes, the pole in p^{0} is in the same location as one of the poles in p^2 - m^2_{\lambda}

7.36 is a "sum over singularities" indexed by λ. If the masses are those of one-particle states, the singularities are poles. If the masses are those of multiparticle states, the singularities are branch cuts. That's why I displayed the energy as a function of the index.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
That's true, so just so I'm understanding it correctly a quick recap, thinking of the whole thing as a function in p^{0}:

We've got an expression which is a sum over poles in p^{0} - with positions determined by the energies E_{\textbf{p}} corresponding to given states \lambda_{\textbf{p}}.

Within this there's one isolated pole defining the one-particle state, then a branch cut beyond the 2 particle threshold which is basically like a continuum of 'poles' - and it's generally true that at the region of the isolated pole this relationship that the denominator equals p^{2}-m^{2}_{\lambda} holds as we may manipulate it as above, and furthermore that on the branch cut, at the point corresponding any given state \lambda_{\textbf{p}} it also holds as each point there will have the value of m_{\lambda} to keep it generally true.

However in the void for ('unphysical') values of p^{0} between the isolated pole and branch-cut, this statement about the denominator of 7.36 being p^{2}-m^{2}_{\lambda} is not true.

Thanks again!
 
Fysicus said:
Within this there's one isolated pole defining the one-particle state…

By “isolated” is meant that there’s a gap between the mass m of any one-particle state and the mass of the lightest multiparticle state, which is the two-particle state with mass 2m. In other words, the mass of anyone particle state is isolated from the continuum of masses of multiparticle states.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K