Explicit form of scalar propagator

parton
Messages
79
Reaction score
1
Hi!

I have encountered a little problem. I want to show
that the explicit form of the Feynman propagator for massless scalar fields is given by:

<br /> \begin{align}<br /> G_F(x) &amp; = - \lim_{\epsilon \to +0} \int \dfrac{\mathrm{d}^{4}k}{(2 \pi)^{4}} \dfrac{1}{k^{2} + i \epsilon} \mathrm{e}^{- i k x} <br /> \\<br /> &amp; = - \lim_{\epsilon \to +0} \dfrac{1}{4 \pi^{2}} \dfrac{1}{x^{2} -i \epsilon} <br /> \end{align}<br />

And I would like to do that directly, i.e., without starting from the massive case and considering the limit m \to 0.

I found a script where one can find a derivation of that result,

http://mo.pa.msu.edu/phy853/lectures/lectures.pdf

on pages 58-59.

There, the integration is split up into the imaginary and real part.

But for the imaginary part, the author finds:

<br /> \begin{align}<br /> G_F,i(x) &amp; = \dfrac{1}{4 \pi^{2} r} \int_{0}^{\infty} \mathrm{d}k \cos(k x_{0}) \sin(k r)<br /> \\<br /> &amp; = \dfrac{1}{16 \pi^{2} r i} \int_{0}^{\infty} \mathrm{d}k \left[ \mathrm{e}^{ik(x_{0}+r)} - \mathrm{e}^{-ik(x_{0}+r)} + \mathrm{e}^{-ik(x_{0}-r)} - \mathrm{e}^{ik(x_{0}-r)} \right]<br /> \\<br /> &amp; = - \frac{1}{8 \pi^{2} r} \left[ \dfrac{1}{x_{0} + r} - \dfrac{1}{x_{0} - r} \right]<br /> \\<br /> &amp; = - \frac{1}{4 \pi^{2} x^{2}}<br /> \end{align}<br />

Here, I don't understand how the integration is performed. I think if you integrate every exponential term it will diverge at \infty, but somehow the author ends up with a finite term.

Does anyone understand what is going on here?

Furthermore, I think we should end up with Cauchy's principal value and not just 1/x^2, right?

Maybe, someone has a more "elegant" way of deriving the massless propagator?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Make a change of variables k'=ik or k'=-ik as needed
 
dauto said:
Make a change of variables k'=ik or k'=-ik as needed

Thank you for your hint, but somehow I don't see how that could help.
If I make the substitution k&#039; = i k I find:

<br /> \begin{align}<br /> \int_{0}^{\infty} \mathrm{d}k &amp; \left[ \mathrm{e}^{ik(x_{0}+r)} - \mathrm{e}^{-ik(x_{0}+r)} + \mathrm{e}^{-ik(x_{0}-r)} - \mathrm{e}^{ik(x_{0}-r)} \right] =<br /> \\<br /> &amp; = -i \int_{0}^{i \infty} \mathrm{d}k \left[ \mathrm{e}^{k(x_{0}+r)} - \mathrm{e}^{-k(x_{0}+r)} + \mathrm{e}^{-k(x_{0}-r)} - \mathrm{e}^{k(x_{0}-r)} \right]<br /> \\<br /> &amp; = -i \left[ \dfrac{1}{x_{0} + r} \left( \mathrm{e}^{k(x_{0}+r)} + \mathrm{e}^{-k(x_{0}+r)} \right) - \dfrac{1}{x_{0} - r} \left( \mathrm{e}^{k(x_{0}-r)} + \mathrm{e}^{-k(x_{0}-r)} \right) \right] \Bigg|_{0}^{i \infty}<br /> \\<br /> &amp; = -2 i \left[ \dfrac{1}{x_{0} + r} \mathrm{cosh}(k (x_{0} + r)) - \dfrac{1}{x_{0} - r} \mathrm{cosh}(k(x_{0}-r)) \right] \Bigg|_{0}^{i \infty}<br /> \end{align}<br />

And this will diverge for k \to i \infty.

Do you have an idea to resolve this problem?
 
Multiply integrand by \exp(-\alpha k), integrate it and then take limit of \alpha as zero.
\alpha is real and positive.
 
Ravi Mohan said:
Multiply integrand by \exp(-\alpha k), integrate it and then take limit of \alpha as zero.
\alpha is real and positive.

OK, thanks a lot :smile:. This seems to work.

But what I still not undestand is: Why can the result - \dfrac{1}{4 \pi^{2} x^{2}} be undestood as Cauchy's principal value?
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top