Correlation function poles in Peskin's derivation of LSZ formula

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:


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

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


[itex]\int dx^{0} = \int^{\infty}_{T_{+}} dx^{0} + \int^{T_{+}}_{T_{-}} dx^{0} + \int^{T_{-}}_{\infty} dx^{0}[/itex]

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:


[itex]\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[/itex]

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

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

[itex] \frac{1}{2E_\textbf{p}} \frac{1}{p^{0}-E_{\textbf{p}}+i\epsilon} = \frac{1}{p^{2}-m_{\lambda}^{2}}[/itex] ?

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 [itex]\sqrt{Z}[/itex], do they just mean that this quantity has a pole with residue [itex]\sqrt{Z}[/itex] at [itex]p^{0} = E_{\textbf{p}}[/itex] much like the piece of the full propagator containing the mass singularities? Is this possibly what they mean by the next statement (7.37):


[itex]\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[/itex]

as

[itex]p^{0} \rightarrow +E_{\textbf{p}}[/itex]

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:


[itex]p^{0} \rightarrow E_{\textbf{p}}[/itex]

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


[itex]E_{\textbf{p}} \rightarrow p_{0}[/itex]?

Or to write it another way,


[itex]2E_{\textbf{p}}(p^{0}-E_{\textbf{p}}) \rightarrow (p^{0}+E_{\textbf{p}})(p^{0}-E_{\textbf{p}})[/itex]

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

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 [itex]p^{0}[/itex]:

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

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 [itex]p^{2}-m^{2}_{\lambda}[/itex] holds as we may manipulate it as above, and furthermore that on the branch cut, at the point corresponding any given state [itex]\lambda_{\textbf{p}}[/itex] it also holds as each point there will have the value of [itex]m_{\lambda}[/itex] to keep it generally true.

However in the void for ('unphysical') values of [itex]p^{0}[/itex] between the isolated pole and branch-cut, this statement about the denominator of 7.36 being [itex]p^{2}-m^{2}_{\lambda}[/itex] 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
4K
  • · 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
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K