Question on derivation/notation in a report

  • I
  • Thread starter TheCanadian
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Report
In summary: In this special case the result of this limit is an expression involving the principle value and another distribution. This is just a short-hand notation. Instead of introducing the −i0+−i0+-\mathrm{i} 0^+. introduce −iϵ−i\epsilon with ϵ>0\epsilon>0. Then you have to integrate first over τ∈[0,∞)τ\in [0,\infty)τ∈[0,∞) and then take the limit ϵ→0+ϵ \rightarrow 0^+ϵ→0+. This limit has to be understood in the weak sense, i.e., the result of the integral is a distribution which can be seen
  • #1
TheCanadian
367
13
Screen Shot 2016-06-01 at 12.39.18 PM.png


This is from "An Essay on the Theory of Collective Spontaneous Emission" by Gross and Haroche (1982).

I was wondering how exactly they were able to separate the operator D in the Heisenberg representation into positive and negative frequencies with an imaginary exponential on only the left side of ## D^{\pm}_j ##.

I was also wondering what exactly the PP distribution was referring to. I don't recall reading it defined earlier, and am not entirely sure what it is.

Any help with the above would be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Let's set ##c=1## to simplify things and then regularize the integral by introducing a small negative imaginary part to ##k## then you have the integral
$$I(k-k_0)=\int_0^{\infty} \mathrm{d} \tau \exp[-\mathrm{i} \tau (k-k_0-\mathrm{i} 0^+)]=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}(k-k_0+\mathrm{i} 0^+)}=-\pi \delta(k-k_0) - \mathrm{i} \text{PP} \frac{1}{k-k_0}.$$
 
  • #3
vanhees71 said:
Let's set ##c=1## to simplify things and then regularize the integral by introducing a small negative imaginary part to ##k## then you have the integral
$$I(k-k_0)=\int_0^{\infty} \mathrm{d} \tau \exp[-\mathrm{i} \tau (k-k_0-\mathrm{i} 0^+)]=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}(k-k_0+\mathrm{i} 0^+)}=-\pi \delta(k-k_0) - \mathrm{i} \text{PP} \frac{1}{k-k_0}.$$

Thank you for the response. I think this is fairly basic, but how exactly did you evaluate

$$ \frac{e^{-\mathrm{i} \tau (k-k_0-\mathrm{i} 0^+)}}{-\mathrm{i}(k-k_0 - \mathrm{i} 0^+)} $$

in the limit ## \tau \rightarrow \infty ##?

And I think this is just stemming from my lack of understanding, but how exactly are the two expressions: ##\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}(k-k_0+\mathrm{i} 0^+)}## and ## -\pi \delta(k-k_0) - \mathrm{i} \text{PP} \frac{1}{k-k_0} ## equivalent?
 
  • #4
  • Like
Likes TheCanadian
  • #5
TheCanadian said:
Thank you for the response. I think this is fairly basic, but how exactly did you evaluate

$$ \frac{e^{-\mathrm{i} \tau (k-k_0-\mathrm{i} 0^+)}}{-\mathrm{i}(k-k_0 - \mathrm{i} 0^+)} $$

in the limit ## \tau \rightarrow \infty ##?

And I think this is just stemming from my lack of understanding, but how exactly are the two expressions: ##\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}(k-k_0+\mathrm{i} 0^+)}## and ## -\pi \delta(k-k_0) - \mathrm{i} \text{PP} \frac{1}{k-k_0} ## equivalent?

Concerning the 1st question: That's the point of introducing the ##-\mathrm{i} 0^+##. No matter how small you take it, it makes the exponential vanish in the limit ##\tau \rightarrow \infty##. That's how you get the final result as the integral only taken at the lower limit ##\tau=0##.

Concerning the 2nd question: Take an analytic test function ##\phi(k)## vanishing quickly enough for (complex!) ##k## anywere. Now we want to evaluate the integral
$$\Phi_{\epsilon}(k_0)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \mathrm{d} k \frac{f(k)}{k-k_0+\mathrm{i} \epsilon}.$$
Now we have
$$\frac{1}{k-k_0+\mathrm{i} \epsilon}=\frac{k-k_0-\mathrm{i} \epsilon}{(k-k_0)^2+\epsilon^2}.$$
Thus we can write the integral as
$$\Phi_{\epsilon}(k_0)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \mathrm{d} k \left [\frac{f(k)}{k-k_0} \; \frac{(k-k_0)^2}{(k-k_0)^2+\epsilon^2}-\frac{\mathrm{i} \epsilon}{(k-k_0)^2+\epsilon^2} f(k) \right].$$
For the first term the contributions from ##|k-k_0| \gg \epsilon## the 2nd factor is ##\approx 1## while for ##|k-k_0|^2 \ll \epsilon## the contribution is negligible. For ##\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+## you get thus from this term the principle value, because the 2nd factor is symmetric around ##k=k_0##.

In the 2nd term the factor in the integrand is an approximate ##\delta## function, since
$$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \mathrm{d} k \frac{\epsilon}{(k-k_0)^2+\epsilon^2}=\arctan \left (\frac{k-k_0}{\epsilon} \right)_{-\infty}^{\infty}=\pi,$$
and for ##\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+## this factor goes to 0 for ##k-k_0 \neq 0## and to ##\infty## for ##k-k_0=0##. So finally we have
$$\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \mathrm{d} k \frac{f(k)}{k-k_0+\mathrm{i} \epsilon} = \text{PP} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \mathrm{d} k \frac{f(k)}{k-k_0} -\mathrm{i} \pi f(k_0),$$
and this we wanted to show.
 
  • #6
vanhees71 said:
Concerning the 1st question: That's the point of introducing the −i0+−i0+-\mathrm{i} 0^+. No matter how small you take it, it makes the exponential vanish in the limit τ→∞τ→∞\tau \rightarrow \infty. That's how you get the final result as the integral only taken at the lower limit τ=0τ=0\tau=0.

Thank you for the explanation. That was incredibly helpful! I think I'm just missing this initial part: how is it valid to introduce ##\mathrm{i} 0^+## into the expression? If both both limits ##\tau \rightarrow \infty ## and ##0^+ \rightarrow 0## are necessary to evaluate the original integral, we just have to ensure ##\tau## is increasing more quickly than ##0^+## is decreasing in order to be able to evaluate the integral only at ##\tau = 0##, correct? Regularization of the integral is not something I am too familiar with, but thank you for sharing.
 
  • #7
This is just a short-hand notation. Instead of introducing ##\mathrm{i} 0^+## introduce ##\mathrm{i} \epsilon## with ##\epsilon>0##. Then you have to integrate first over ##\tau \in [0,\infty)## and then take the limit ##\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+##. This limit has to be understood in the weak sense, i.e., the result of the integral is a distribution which can be seen as a functional on the space of test functions (e.g., the ##C^{\infty}## functions with compact support), i.e., you multiply the expression with a finite ##\epsilon>0## with a test function, take the integral and then take ##\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+##. For many cases one does this once for all test functions like the Dirac ##\delta## distribution or the expression ##1/(k-k_0+\mathrm{i} 0^+)## which stands for a distribution defined in this kind as a "weak limit" of an integral to be taken together with an arbitrary test function.
 
  • Like
Likes TheCanadian

1. What is the purpose of including derivations and notations in a report?

The purpose of including derivations and notations in a report is to provide a clear and concise explanation of the steps taken to arrive at a particular result. This helps readers understand the methodology and reasoning behind the findings presented in the report.

2. How should derivations and notations be formatted in a report?

Derivations and notations should be clearly labeled and organized in a logical manner, typically following the order in which they are presented in the report. It is also important to use consistent notation throughout the report to avoid confusion.

3. Can abbreviations be used in derivations and notations?

Yes, abbreviations can be used as long as they are defined and explained in the report. This helps readers understand the meaning of the abbreviations and their relevance in the derivations and notations.

4. Is it necessary to include derivations and notations for every calculation in a report?

It is not necessary to include derivations and notations for every calculation, but it is important to include them for any key or complex calculations that are crucial to the findings of the report. This helps readers understand the reasoning behind the results and ensures the accuracy of the findings.

5. How should citations be used for derivations and notations taken from other sources?

If derivations and notations are taken from other sources, it is important to properly cite the source and give credit to the original author. This helps avoid plagiarism and gives credibility to the report.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Math Proof Training and Practice
2
Replies
40
Views
14K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
19
Views
17K
Back
Top