Prove Annoying Integral in Weinberg's QFT Vol. I

  • Thread starter topsquark
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Integral
In summary, the theorem states that if f is a C^{\infty} function and \lim_{x \to \pm \infty}f(x) exists, then there exists a limit as x->infinity of f(x) + \lim_{x \to -\infty}f(x). This is derived from path integrals in Weinberg's book "The Quantum Theory of Fields," Vol 1.
  • #1
topsquark
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
MHB
2,018
816
I realize this is technically strictly a Math problem, but as it comes up in QFT I was thinking someone here might be more familiar with the theorem. I am trying to prove:

[tex]\lim_{x \to \infty}f(x) + \lim_{x \to -\infty}f(x) = \lim_{\epsilon \to 0^+} \epsilon \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dx f(x) e^{-\epsilon |x|}[/tex]

It crops up in Weinberg's QFT book (Vol. I) as he explains how to derive the S matrix using path integrals. f(x) is a wavefunction and for the sake of argument I am making two assumptions:
1) [tex]\lim_{x \to \pm \infty}f(x)[/tex] both exist and
2) f(x) is a [tex]C^{\infty}[/tex] function.
(The text actually only requires f(x) to be "sufficiently smooth." I'll happily accept a proof with a [tex]C^{\infty}[/tex] function and worry about other details later.)

The specific text reference is "The Quantum Theory of Fields," Vol 1., by Weinberg. It is equation 9.2.15 on page 388.

Thanks and Merry Christmas everyone!
-Dan

Edit: I find it amusing that, though the Math problem is possibly at undergraduate level that someone thought a Physics reference to Quantum Field Theory would be at an undergraduate level and thus moved this post here.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The first thing that you might try doing is something that seems rather obvious: split [tex]\int_{-\infty}^\infty \rightarrow \int_{-\infty}^0 + \int_0^{\infty}[/tex] and see if that gets you anywhere. At least that gets rid of the absolute value in the exponent, and I always hate those. My guess is that you might then be able to recognize the exponentials times [tex]\epsilon[/tex] terms as representations of delta functions.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
StatMechGuy said:
The first thing that you might try doing is something that seems rather obvious: split [tex]\int_{-\infty}^\infty \rightarrow \int_{-\infty}^0 + \int_0^{\infty}[/tex] and see if that gets you anywhere. At least that gets rid of the absolute value in the exponent, and I always hate those. My guess is that you might then be able to recognize the exponentials times [tex]\epsilon[/tex] terms as representations of delta functions.

I can't see how it could be related to a delta function since the argument of the exponential is real. However, I've tried two approaches along those lines. The first was to try to work on it as a Laplace transform, which eventually gives me (not including the [tex]\epsilon[/tex] limit)
[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dx f(x) e^{-\epsilon |x|} = \int_0^{\infty} dx f(-x) e^{-\epsilon x} + \int_0^{\infty} dx f(x) e^{-\epsilon x}[/tex]
which I can't figure out what to do with because I don't know any relationship between the first integral and [tex]L \{ f(x) \} [/tex].

The second approach was simply to integrate by parts:
[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dx f(x) e^{-\epsilon |x|} = \lim_{x \to \infty} \left [ (f(x) + f(-x)) \frac{e^{-\epsilon x}}{\epsilon} \right ] -[/tex] [tex] \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dx f'(x) e^{-\epsilon |x|}[/tex]

Applying the [tex]\lim_{\epsilon \to 0^+} \epsilon[/tex] operator to this gives:
[tex]\lim_{\epsilon \to 0^+} \epsilon \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dx f(x) e^{-\epsilon |x|} = - \lim_{\epsilon \to 0^+} \lim_{x \to \infty} \left [ (f(x) + f(-x)) e^{-\epsilon x} \right ] - [/tex] [tex]\lim_{\epsilon \to 0^+} \epsilon \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dx f'(x) e^{-\epsilon |x|}[/tex]

I am presuming the limit of the integral goes to 0 (I'll work on that later), but I don't know how to take that combined limit of the first term.

-Dan
 
Last edited:
  • #4
As x->infinity, [itex]e^{-\epsilon x}[/itex]->1, all epsilon>0. Also, be careful with the cusp at x=0 when integrating by parts.
 
  • #5
StatusX said:
As x->infinity, [itex]e^{-\epsilon x}[/itex]->1, all epsilon>0. Also, be careful with the cusp at x=0 when integrating by parts.

Actually that would be "as x -> infinity [itex]e^{-\epsilon x}[/itex] -> 0." (Which is disappointing as the form otherwise was close to what I needed to show.)

Thanks for the tip about the cusp at x = 0. I always forget about that detail.

-Dan
 
  • #6
I just looked at this briefly. If you split the two integrals, as suggested above, and then do a variable change in the two integrals [tex] \bar x \rightarrow \epsilon x [/tex].
Then we get
[tex] \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+} \epsilon \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dx f(x) e^{-\epsilon |x|} = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+} \epsilon \left( \int_{-\infty}^0 dx f(x) e^{\epsilon x} + \int_0^\infty dx f(x) e^{-\epsilon x} \right) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+} \left( \int_{-\infty}^0 d\bar x f(\frac{\bar x}{\epsilon}) e^{\bar x} + \int_0^\infty d\bar x f(\frac{\bar x}{\epsilon}) e^{-\bar x}\right).[/tex]

Now, in a typical physical way to treat mathematics, we can move in the limit inside the two integrals. The limiting procedure then becomes independent of the integration variable. For example the first integral is
[tex] \int d\bar x \left( \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+} f(\frac{\bar x}{\epsilon}) \right) e^{\bar x} = \left( \lim_{x\rightarrow -\infty} f(x) \right) \int_{-\infty}^0 d\bar x e^{\bar x} = \lim_{x \rightarrow -\infty} f(x) [/tex],
where it is used that the integral over the exponential is 1. The second integral follows in a similar manner.

This, of course, is not a rigorous mathematical proof, but it is a motivation for why one should believe in the result.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Oh, right, sorry. Even better though. Then the first term drops. I think you're missing a 1/epsilon on the second term. Then if you can justify switching the limit and integral, which should be possible using the dominated convergence theorem, you just get the infinite integral of f'(x), which will give you you're result up to a wrong sign. I think this will be fixed by more careful treatment of the cusp.
 
  • #8
Hmm.. I'm not sure where you mean there should be a [tex] 1 / \epsilon [/tex]. I think that what I wrote is correct.
I might have been a little unclear. The variable change should be [tex] \bar x = \epsilon x [/tex], which gives us [tex] d\bar x = \epsilon dx [/tex].
The different signs comes from the fact that the integrals are over the negative and positive parts of the real axis, respectively.
 
  • #9
Sorry, I was referring to the last line in post 3.
 
  • #10
Jezuz said:
I just looked at this briefly. If you split the two integrals, as suggested above, and then do a variable change in the two integrals [tex] \bar x \rightarrow \epsilon x [/tex].
Then we get
[tex] \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+} \epsilon \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dx f(x) e^{-\epsilon |x|} = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+} \epsilon \left( \int_{-\infty}^0 dx f(x) e^{\epsilon x} + \int_0^\infty dx f(x) e^{-\epsilon x} \right) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+} \left( \int_{-\infty}^0 d\bar x f(\frac{\bar x}{\epsilon}) e^{\bar x} + \int_0^\infty d\bar x f(\frac{\bar x}{\epsilon}) e^{-\bar x}\right).[/tex]

Now, in a typical physical way to treat mathematics, we can move in the limit inside the two integrals. The limiting procedure then becomes independent of the integration variable. For example the first integral is
[tex] \int d\bar x \left( \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+} f(\frac{\bar x}{\epsilon}) \right) e^{\bar x} = \left( \lim_{x\rightarrow -\infty} f(x) \right) \int_{-\infty}^0 d\bar x e^{\bar x} = \lim_{x \rightarrow -\infty} f(x) [/tex],
where it is used that the integral over the exponential is 1. The second integral follows in a similar manner.

This, of course, is not a rigorous mathematical proof, but it is a motivation for why one should believe in the result.

Sorry it took me so long to answer, I was away over Christmas.

Not rigorous, but quite good enough for my puposes. Thanks! (And thanks also to StatusX for your efforts as well!)

-Dan
 

FAQ: Prove Annoying Integral in Weinberg's QFT Vol. I

1. What is an "annoying integral" in Weinberg's QFT?

An "annoying integral" is a term coined by physicist Steven Weinberg in his book "The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume I" to describe certain integrals that arise in quantum field theory calculations. These integrals are notoriously difficult to compute and often lead to divergent or infinite results, making them a major challenge in the field.

2. Why are these integrals considered difficult to prove?

There are several reasons why "annoying integrals" are considered difficult to prove. One reason is that they often involve complex mathematical techniques such as contour integration and dimensional regularization. Additionally, these integrals may have no closed-form solution, requiring numerical methods to approximate their values.

3. How do scientists approach proving "annoying integrals"?

Scientists approach proving "annoying integrals" by using a combination of mathematical techniques and physical reasoning. This may involve applying various integration methods, using symmetries and physical principles to simplify the integral, and performing approximations or expansions to make the problem more tractable.

4. Can "annoying integrals" be proven in all cases?

No, it is not possible to prove "annoying integrals" in all cases. In some cases, the integrals may be so complex that they are beyond the current capabilities of mathematics and must be approximated numerically. In other cases, the integrals may be fundamentally divergent and require the use of regularization techniques to provide meaningful results.

5. Why are "annoying integrals" important in quantum field theory?

"Annoying integrals" are important in quantum field theory because they are essential for calculating physical quantities such as particle scattering amplitudes and cross sections. These integrals arise naturally in the mathematical formulation of quantum field theory and their solutions provide crucial insights into the behavior of quantum systems at a fundamental level.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
269
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
1K
Back
Top