Missing Terms in 3.11: Investigating Second Order Terms

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Fredrik
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Second order Terms
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the identification of second-order terms in equation 3.11, where the user initially identifies six terms, two of which cancel out. The remaining terms include KμKμ and KνKν, leading to confusion regarding their absence on the right side of 3.11. The user realizes that a more comprehensive approach to writing the exponent, specifically e^{i \epsilon K_{\mu}} = 1 + i \epsilon K_{\mu} - 1/2 \epsilon^2 K_{\mu}^2 + ..., reveals additional second-order terms that were previously overlooked.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of second-order perturbation theory
  • Familiarity with mathematical notation involving exponents
  • Knowledge of tensor notation in theoretical physics
  • Basic grasp of quantum field theory concepts
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the derivation of second-order terms in perturbation theory
  • Study the implications of KμKμ and KνKν terms in quantum field equations
  • Learn about the significance of the exponent expansion in quantum mechanics
  • Explore the role of cancellation in mathematical physics equations
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, graduate students in quantum mechanics, and researchers focusing on perturbation theory and its applications in quantum field theory.

Fredrik
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
10,876
Reaction score
423
Top of page 69. I get six second order terms. Two of them cancel. Two are the ones on the right of 3.11. The other two involve KμKμ and KνKν. Why are there no such terms on the right of 3.11? I'm probably just missing something painfully obvious.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Actually, there are more than 6 second-order terms. In order to see all of them, write each exponent as

[tex]e^{i \epsilon K_{\mu}} = 1 + i \epsilon K_{\mu} -1/2 \epsilon^2 K_{\mu}^2 + \ldots[/tex]
 
Thank you. At least I was right about something: I did miss something painfully obvious. :redface:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
953
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K