Reallllly dumb question about Feynman Parameters (and simplifying them)

Elwin.Martin
Messages
202
Reaction score
0
I know the generalized formula for Feynman parameters, my problem is in simplifying.

What I mean is something like this:
Take the simplest 3 parameter equation
\frac{1}{ABC} = 2 \int_0^1 dx \int_0^1 dy \int_0^1 dz \frac{ \delta \left( 1-x-y-z \right)}{(xA+yB+zC)^3}
And you can take this and put move to two integrals by integrating over z, I understand that we use the delta function to get (xA+yB+(1-x-y)C)3 in the denominator of the new integrand...however, I don't understand why we now have:
2 \int_0^1 dx \int_0^{1-x} dy
I've done it out by hand to check it, so I know this is what we need...but why do we substitute in 1-x for the limit of integration?

This is probably a dumb question, but I need to know so I can generalize to four parameters.

Thanks for any and all help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Alright, so after drawing it by hand once...I feel like it has something to do with the shape of region the delta function sort of cuts out? We're realistically only integrating over a plane now, since the delta function assigns zero to everywhere except x+y+z=1, right? So our integration is really over just that plane...still failing from here though.
 
If y was allowed to be bigger than 1-x, then x+y would be bigger than 1. But x+y+z=1, and z is between 0 and 1. So x+y cannot be bigger than 1. Thus the upper limit on the y integral. (We could equally well first integrate over x from 0 to 1-y, and then over y from 0 to 1.)
 
Avodyne said:
If y was allowed to be bigger than 1-x, then x+y would be bigger than 1. But x+y+z=1, and z is between 0 and 1. So x+y cannot be bigger than 1. Thus the upper limit on the y integral. (We could equally well first integrate over x from 0 to 1-y, and then over y from 0 to 1.)

That makes sense.

So for four parameters would we have:
\int_0^1 dx \int_0^{1-x} dy \int_0^{1-x-y} dz ?
 
Bumping this, I would really like to know still...I feel like an idiot, but I sort of need to understand this.
 
Yes.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top