Hi!(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I have encountered a little problem. I want to show

that theexplicitform of the Feynman propagator for massless scalar fields is given by:

[tex]

\begin{align}

G_F(x) & = - \lim_{\epsilon \to +0} \int \dfrac{\mathrm{d}^{4}k}{(2 \pi)^{4}} \dfrac{1}{k^{2} + i \epsilon} \mathrm{e}^{- i k x}

\\

& = - \lim_{\epsilon \to +0} \dfrac{1}{4 \pi^{2}} \dfrac{1}{x^{2} -i \epsilon}

\end{align}

[/tex]

And I would like to do thatdirectly, i.e., without starting from the massive case and considering the limit [itex] m \to 0 [/itex].

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:

[tex]

\begin{align}

G_F,i(x) & = \dfrac{1}{4 \pi^{2} r} \int_{0}^{\infty} \mathrm{d}k \cos(k x_{0}) \sin(k r)

\\

& = \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]

\\

& = - \frac{1}{8 \pi^{2} r} \left[ \dfrac{1}{x_{0} + r} - \dfrac{1}{x_{0} - r} \right]

\\

& = - \frac{1}{4 \pi^{2} x^{2}}

\end{align}

[/tex]

Here, I don't understand how the integration is performed. I think if you integrate every exponential term it willdivergeat [itex]\infty[/itex], but somehow the author ends up with afiniteterm.

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 Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Explicit form of scalar propagator

Loading...

Similar Threads - Explicit form scalar | Date |
---|---|

At most explicit time-dependent operator | Jun 28, 2014 |

Lagrangian explicitly preserves symmetries of a theory? | Aug 25, 2013 |

Explicit form for representing two spin 1/2 system | Apr 3, 2011 |

Explicit form of time evolution operator | Dec 16, 2010 |

Explicitly Deriving the Delta Function | Oct 29, 2008 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**