What Strategies Can Tackle This Complex Contour Integral?

MadMax
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
Contour integral

How would you deal with this?

\int \frac{\rho \sin{\theta} d \rho d \theta}{\cos{\theta}} \frac{K^2}{K^2 + \rho^2} e^{i \rho \cos{\theta} f(\mathbf{x})}

if the cos(theta) were'nt on the bottom I'd have no problem; I'd simply substitute for cos(theta) and the sin(theta) would cancel...

but as it stands.. I'm stumped.

Help/hints would be much appreciated. Thanks for reading.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you sure there should be a cos(theta) in the denominator? Where did that expression come from?
 
well I had something like:

\int \frac{d^3 \mathbf{q}}{\mathbf{q_z}} \frac{2K^2 + \mathbf{q}^2 - (\mathbf{q} \cdot \hat{x})^2}{2(K^2 + \mathbf{q}^2)}e^{i \mathbf{q_{\perp}} \cdot \mathbf{x}}e^{i \mathbf{q_z} f(\mathbf{x})}

I made q_z parallel to x, (which means the first exponential disappears), converted into spherical coords, integrated over \phi from 0 to 2pi, and thus...
 
Last edited:
I guess I'm stumped as well. Anybody else seen something like that?
 
I wasn't correct in some of the things I wrote in the two equations. The second exponential in particular...

I edited them so they're correct now. Not sure if it makes a difference but perhaps it helps? Might make sense how I got from one to the other now anyway...
 
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