Quantum Field Theory: Evaluating Integrals on Page 27

touqra
Messages
284
Reaction score
0
I don't understand how Peskin & Schroeder can evaluate the integral on page 27 by having the real axis wrapping around branch cuts just like that. The picture of the contours are on page 28.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think what they have done is simply completed a loop (like a key-hole contour) but the arc/circular bit dies away as your variable go to infinity so effectively the flat/horizontal bit is same as the two vertical bits (by Cauchy theorem... as no poles inside loop)

describing the loop: first bit is the original bit the flat/horizontal (-R,+R) bit with R eventually taken to infinity, then to complete the loop you need to add a 1/4 of an arc going from +R to +iR, then comes down to avoid the branch cut, go around the pole and goes up again before arch back from +iR to -R.
 
mjsd said:
I think what they have done is simply completed a loop (like a key-hole contour) but the arc/circular bit dies away as your variable go to infinity so effectively the flat/horizontal bit is same as the two vertical bits (by Cauchy theorem... as no poles inside loop)

describing the loop: first bit is the original bit the flat/horizontal (-R,+R) bit with R eventually taken to infinity, then to complete the loop you need to add a 1/4 of an arc going from +R to +iR, then comes down to avoid the branch cut, go around the pole and goes up again before arch back from +iR to -R.

Why would the arc or circular bit dies away as the variable goes infinity?
 
I haven't check this particular example and see if it does goes away... but it usually does and that's why we close the contour in the first place...by the way, I did say "I think"...perhaps you can check that... to prove that you need to look at your integrand and see what happen when R becomes large (ie. when the integration variable expressed in polar form becomes large). Sometimes Jordon's lemma or ML-estimate maybe used to help.
 
mjsd said:
I haven't check this particular example and see if it does goes away... but it usually does and that's why we close the contour in the first place...by the way, I did say "I think"...perhaps you can check that... to prove that you need to look at your integrand and see what happen when R becomes large (ie. when the integration variable expressed in polar form becomes large). Sometimes Jordon's lemma or ML-estimate maybe used to help.

I looked up on Jordan's lemma, and yeah the integrand of the semicircular path (excluding the real axis) tends to zero as R goes infinity.
OOOooo contour integrals are so interesting !
Thank you!

Is ML estimate maximum likelihood estimate? How can ML estimate be used here since it is about probability?
 
when I said ML-estimate I mean the following:
Suppose C is a piecewise smooth curve. If h(z) is continuous function on C then
\displaystyle{\left|\int_{C} h(z)\, dz\right| \leq <br /> \int_{C}|h(z)|\, |dz|}.
and if C has length L and |h(z)|\leq M on C then
\displaystyle{\left|\int_{C} h(z)\, dz\right| \leq ML}
 
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