Understanding Renormalisation Calculations in Field Theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter latentcorpse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculations
latentcorpse
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
0
On p 51 of these notes:
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/ho/Notes.pdf ,

I'm trying to follow the calculation \int \frac{d^dk}{(2 \pi )^d} \frac{1}{(k^2+m^2)^2}= - \frac{\partial}{\partial m^2} \dots

It looks to me like we can just use the calculation above and then take the derivative at the end but somehow this isn't working as whilst he has lowered the power on the m^2, he hasn't multiplied through by the old power. Additionally, the argument of the Gamma function has changed!

What's going on?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you tried computing the ratio of your result to his?
 
fzero said:
Have you tried computing the ratio of your result to his?

You mean that if I expand out the gamma function in both expressions, I should find they are the same?

Even so though, how did he end up with his version rather than mine?
 
He just used an identity to tidy up the result a bit.
 
fzero said:
He just used an identity to tidy up the result a bit.

So he does it my way then uses \Gamma(\alpha+1)= \alpha \Gamma(\alpha)?
 
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