Understanding Renormalisation Calculations in Field Theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter latentcorpse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculations
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a calculation in field theory related to renormalization, specifically involving an integral and its manipulation with respect to parameters like mass squared.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are exploring the steps involved in the calculation of an integral and the implications of taking derivatives with respect to parameters. Questions arise about the consistency of results and the use of identities related to the Gamma function.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants questioning the validity of their approaches and seeking clarification on the differences between their results and those presented in the notes. Some guidance has been offered regarding the use of identities, but no consensus has been reached on the interpretation of the calculations.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working from specific notes that outline the calculation, and there appears to be some confusion regarding the manipulation of terms and the application of mathematical identities. The original poster expresses uncertainty about the changes in the argument of the Gamma function and the treatment of parameters in the integral.

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)?
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
773
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K