A Is Brute Force the Best Approach to Proving Feynman's Denominator Formula?

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter spaghetti3451
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula
spaghetti3451
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
31
I would like to prove Feynman's denominator formula:

##\frac{1}{A_{1}\dots A_{n}} = (n-1)!\int_{0}^{1}dx_{1}\dots dx_{n}\delta(x_{1}+\dots+x_{n}-1)(x_{1}A_{1}+\dots+x_{n}A_{n})^{-n}##

I was wondering if you would recommend brute force approach to solving this problem. I proved the formula for ##n=1,2,3##, and then attempted for the general case using a brute force but the algebra looks messy.

Would you recommend trying an alternative method, perhaps proof by induction?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I have also been checking out Schwinger paramaterization and I found the following integral:

##\displaystyle{\frac{1}{A}=-i\int^\infty_0 du \, e^{iuA}}##

I would like to prove this formula but am having a hard time proving it.

I think you need to solve the RHS by contour integration, and since there is a factor of ##iuA## in the exponent, you close the contour in the upper half of the complex ##u##-plane. But I don't see any branch points, so I am led to guess that the RHS integral is 0.

For the LHS to be equal to RHS, I think that the residue is ##{\frac{1}{2\pi A}}##, but I cannot explain this. Am I missing a branch point in the upper half complex ##u##-plane?
 
You don't need contour integration. For the integral to exist you must only have ##\mathrm{Im} A>0##. Then you can simply use the antiderivative of the exponential function (which is the exponential function):
$$F(u)=\int \mathrm{d} u \exp(\mathrm{i} u A)=-\frac{i}{A} \exp(\mathrm{i} u A),$$
and then the Feynman integral is
$$\int_0^{\infty} \mathrm{d} u \exp(\mathrm{i} u A)=\lim_{u \rightarrow \infty} F(u)-F(0)=\mathrm{i}{A},$$
which proves the formula.

It's exactly what you need for the denominators in perturbation theory, because you have time-ordered Green's functions which always have a positive imaginary part in the denominator, which defines the time-ordered propagator in the usual sense, namely
$$\Delta(p)=\frac{1}{p^2-m^2+\mathrm{i} 0^+}.$$
The ##\mathrm{i} 0^+## is crucial here to get the right propagator, namely the time-ordered one.
 
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!

Similar threads

Back
Top