On deriving the standard form of the Klein-Gordon propagator

Nauj Onerom
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to make sense of the derivation of the Klein-Gordon propagator in Peskin and Schroeder using contour integration. It seems the main step in the argument is that ## e^{-i p^0(x^0-y^0)} ## tends to zero (in the ##r\rightarrow\infty## limit) along a semicircular contour below (resp. above) the real line for ##x^0 > y^0## (resp. ## x^0< y^0 ##). It is this that I'm having trouble making sense of. If we consider $$ \int_{C_{below}} \frac{dp^0}{2\pi}\frac{e^{ip(x--y)}}{i(p^2-m^2)} = \int_{0}^\pi \frac{d\theta}{2\pi}(-ire^{i\theta})\frac{e^{-i[re^{i\theta}(x^0-y^0) - \vec{p}\cdot(\vec{x}-\vec{y})]}}{i((re^{i\theta})^2 - \vec{p}^2 - m^2)},$$ the integrand seems to tend to zero as ## r\rightarrow\infty ## regardless of whether ##x^0 > y^0## or ##y^0 > x^0## since the exponential is bounded. So I guess my question is what stops us from choosing this same contour for the ##y^0 > x^0## case, which would give a nonzero result?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
To use contour integration you need to pick a contour where the extra half-semicircle will go to 0 for large imaginary p0 (due to the exponential). The upper half plane corresponds to +ip0, while the lower half plane corresponds to -ip0. For x0>y0, -ip0 will converge to 0 along the semicircle at infinity (this is the lower half plane), while ip0 blows up along the semicircle at infinity (this is the upper half plane. The argument works exactly in reverse for x0<y0.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top