I Integration being unchanged after rotation

AndrewGRQTF
Messages
27
Reaction score
2
This question is about the general 1 loop correction to the propagator in QFT (this is actually not important for this question). Let's say we have an integral over an integration variable x, and this x ranges from ##-\infty## to ##\infty##. If we look at this integration contour in the complex plane, it will be along the real axis. A book that I am reading (QFT by Srednicki), says that we can rotate this contour counterclockwise onto the imaginary axis, without changing the value of the integral, and he says that this is because the contour does not pass over any poles of the integrand and that the integrand vanishes fast enough as the magnitude of x goes to infinity.

My question is: why does the value of the integral not change when we change the integration contour?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The integral of an entire function over a closed path is zero if there are no poles inside (residue theorem). If the function goes to zero sufficiently fast for large |z| you can write the original integral as sum of the new (rotated) integral plus two closed paths (two 90 degree sectors of the complex plane https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Integration-contour-in-the-complex-s-plane-to-compute-the-integral-representing-the_fig3_242423238, then let their radius go to infinity), the contribution from the closed paths is zero.
 
  • Like
Likes AndrewGRQTF
mfb said:
The integral of an entire function over a closed path is zero if there are no poles inside (residue theorem). If the function goes to zero sufficiently fast for large |z| you can write the original integral as sum of the new (rotated) integral plus two closed paths (two 90 degree sectors of the complex plane https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Integration-contour-in-the-complex-s-plane-to-compute-the-integral-representing-the_fig3_242423238, then let their radius go to infinity), the contribution from the closed paths is zero.

Thank you.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...
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

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top