Evaluating Integral with Spherical Coordinates Using 4-Vectors

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around evaluating a complex integral involving time-like four-vectors and delta functions, specifically I(p_{1}, p_{2}, p_{3}). The integral is derived from a Feynman diagram, and the user has attempted to simplify it using spherical coordinates but is struggling with the integration process. There is uncertainty about the correct specification of elevation and azimuth angles for the spherical coordinates. Additionally, participants express skepticism about the approach of fixing a reference frame, suggesting that it may complicate the integral rather than simplify it. The conversation highlights the challenges of integrating such expressions in quantum field theory.
parton
Messages
79
Reaction score
1
I want to evaluate the following integral:

I(p_{1}, p_{2}, p_{3}) = \int \mathrm{d}^{4} q \mathrm{d}^{4}p \, \dfrac{1}{\left[ p_{2} + q \right]^{2} - i0} \dfrac{1}{\left[ p_{1} - q - p \right]^{2} + i0} \Theta(q^{0}) \delta(q^{2}) \Theta(-p_{2}^{0} -p_{3}^{0} - q^{0} -p^{0}) \delta(\left[p_{2} + p_{3} + q + p \right]^{2}) \Theta(p^{0}) \delta(p^{2}).

p_{1}, p_{2}, p_{3} are time-like four-vectors, so e.g. p_{1}^{2} > 0

After some work like exploiting the step- and delta-functions \Theta(q^{0}) \delta(q^{2}) \Theta(p^{0}) \delta(p^{2}) and by choosing a special frame with
p_{2} + p_{3} = (p_{2}^{0} + p_{3}^{0}, \vec{0}) I arrived at:

I(p_{1}, p_{2}, p_{3}) = \int \dfrac{\mathrm{d}^{3}q \, \mathrm{d}^{3}p}{4 \vert \vec{q} \vert \cdot \vert \vec{p} \vert} \, \dfrac{1}{p_{2}^{2} + p_{2}^{0} \vert \vec{q} \vert + \vert \vec{p}_{2} \vert \cdot \vert \vec{q} \vert \cos \theta_{1} - i0} \, \dfrac{1}{p_{1}^{2} - 2p_{1}^{0} \vert \vec{q} \vert + 2 \vert \vec{p}_{1} \vert \cdot \vert \vec{q} \vert \cos \theta_{2} - 2 p_{1}^{0} \vert \vec{p} \vert + 2 \vert \vec{p}_{1} \vert \cdot \vert \vec{p} \vert \cos \theta_{3} + 2 \vert \vec{q} \vert \cdot \vert \vec{p} \vert - 2 \vert \vec{q} \vert \cdot \vert \vec{p} \vert \cos \eta +i0}

\times \delta((p_{2}^{0}+p_{3}^{0})^{2} + 2 \vert \vec{q} \vert \cdot \vert \vec{p} \vert - 2 \vert \vec{q} \vert \cdot \vert \vec{p} \vert \cos \eta + 2 (p_{2}^{0}+p_{3}^{0})) <br /> \end{split}<br />.

So I used spherical coordinates, but I don't know how to integrate that thing. I just know that if \eta is the angle between the vectors \vec{p} and \vec{q} than we must have: \theta_{3} = \eta - \theta_{2}.

But how do I continue? I think I must somehow specify the elevation and azimuth angles in a special way, but I don't know how to do that.

Could anyone help me please?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ewww...

I have to wonder, how did you get that integral? (Obviously from a Feynman diagram, but which one?) Something about it looks off to me.
 
The integral is just the Fourier transform of G_{F}^{*} G_{F} G G

(of course with some arguments), where * is complex conjugation, G_{F} is the (massless) Feynman-Propagator in p-space and G(p) = \dfrac{i}{2 \pi} \Theta(p^{0}) \delta(p^{2}).

The first expression of the integral above is correct, but I just don't know how to compute it explicitly. And now there is the problem with spherical coordinates, but I don't know how to continue. Any ideas?
 
Not really... I tried fiddling with it a bit but I couldn't get it much simpler than you did. Though I'm not sure that picking a specific reference frame is the way to go about it... whenever I've done these propagator integrals, there hasn't been any need to specialize to a particular reference frame. But on the other hand, I typically had expressions like \delta^{(4)}(p_1^\mu + p_2^\mu) instead of your G(p). A delta function of a momentum four-vector eliminates four degrees of freedom from the integral, but your \delta(p^2) only eliminates one, which means I'd expect your integral to be rather messier than anything I'm used to dealing with.
 

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K