When complex integration depends on the method of evaluation

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a complex integration problem related to scattering processes, specifically focusing on the integral I(σ) = ∫(x sin x)/(x² - σ²) dx. Participants explore the implications of different evaluation methods, which yield distinct results, raising questions about the definition and validity of the integral.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the straightforward contour integration method leading to π cos(σ) and an alternative method involving moving singular points off the real axis, resulting in π e^(±iσ). Questions arise about the validity of obtaining two different results from the same integral and the implications of defining the integral properly.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants sharing insights about the nature of improper integrals and the importance of defining them correctly. There is recognition of the ambiguity in results based on the integration method used, but no consensus has been reached regarding the best approach.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the integral is not well-defined unless σ has an imaginary part, and they discuss the divergence issues that arise when splitting the integral. The discussion highlights the common occurrence of such ambiguities in physics, particularly in quantum field theory.

karlzr
Messages
129
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


It is about an example from Essential Mathematical methods for physicists by Weber & Arfken, which describes a scattering process:
[tex]I(\sigma)=\int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}\frac{x \sin x dx}{x^2-\sigma^2}[/tex]2. The attempt at a solution
The straightforward way is to contruct a contour and one can find the result is [itex]\pi \cos\sigma[/itex]. Then the author said that since this is not an outgoing scattering wave, we should try a different technique. He moved both singular points off the real axis by letting [itex]\sigma→\sigma+i\gamma[/itex], and obtained [itex]\pi e^{-i\sigma}[/itex] or [itex]\pi e^{i\sigma}[/itex].
My question is, how can one integration has two results? Both methods make sense to me, but lead to totally different values. This problem has bothered me a lot when discussing Green function in quantum mechanics.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think the integral is not well-defined in mathematics (unless σ=0 or with an imaginary part). You have a pole, and if you try to split up your integral, those parts will diverge. In physics, it can give meaningful results if you integrate in some specific way to avoid those issues, but then the result can depend on the integration method.
 
karlzr said:

Homework Statement


It is about an example from Essential Mathematical methods for physicists by Weber & Arfken, which describes a scattering process:
[tex]I(\sigma)=\int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}\frac{x \sin x dx}{x^2-\sigma^2}[/tex]2. The attempt at a solution
The straightforward way is to contruct a contour and one can find the result is [itex]\pi \cos\sigma[/itex]. Then the author said that since this is not an outgoing scattering wave, we should try a different technique. He moved both singular points off the real axis by letting [itex]\sigma→\sigma+i\gamma[/itex], and obtained [itex]\pi e^{-i\sigma}[/itex] or [itex]\pi e^{i\sigma}[/itex].
My question is, how can one integration has two results? Both methods make sense to me, but lead to totally different values. This problem has bothered me a lot when discussing Green function in quantum mechanics.

You need to worry about how you define such an integral. Let's look at the integral over [0,∞), which we can regard as having f(x) in the numerator and (x^2-s^2) in the denominator; here, I write s instead of σ because it is easier. Assume s>0. The integral
[tex]J = \int_0^{\infty} \frac{f(x)}{x^2-s^2} \, dx[/tex] is improper, so let us try to define it through a limiting procedure. First, though, note that
[tex]J = \int_0^{\infty} \frac{f(x)-f(s)}{x^2-s^2} \, dx +<br /> \int_0^{\infty} \frac{f(s)}{x^2-s^2} \, dx.[/tex]
The first integral is OK, so we need worry only about the second one; that is, we need to worry about the value of
[tex]K = \int_0^{\infty} \frac{1}{x^2-s^2} \, dx.[/tex]
This integral is improper, so must be defined in terms of some type of limiting procedure. Let us try the following:
[tex]K = \lim_{a,b \rightarrow 0+} J_{ab}, \text{ where } J_{ab} = <br /> \int_0^{s-a} \frac{1}{x^2-s^2}\, dx <br /> + \int_{s+b}^{\infty} \frac{1}{x^2-s^2}\, dx.[/tex]
We have
[tex]J_{ab} = \frac{1}{2s} \ln \left(\frac{2s+b}{2s-a}\right) + \frac{1}{2s} \ln (a/b).[/tex]
If we let a and b go to zero independently, Jab need not have a limit, but if we let a and b go to zero in a fixed ratio k = a/b, the limit is
[tex]\frac{1}{2s} \ln (k).[/tex] You can see from this that the value of k matters a lot.

The most common form of such improper integrals is the "symmetric" version (called the principle value), which takes a = b and gives
[tex]J = \lim_{a \rightarrow 0+} \int_0^{s-a} \frac{1}{x^2-s^2} \, dx <br /> + \int_{s+a}^{\infty} \frac{1}{x^2-s^2} \, dx = 0.[/tex]
However, the undeniable fact is that how you define it can affect its value.

As to your question about getting the two possible values π*exp(± i σ), well I would worry even more about getting a complex value for a real integral; the integrand becomes real in the limit as γ → 0, but the integral remains stubbornly complex, with imaginary part equal to ± π sin(σ).

RGV
 
Last edited:
mfb said:
I think the integral is not well-defined in mathematics (unless σ=0 or with an imaginary part). You have a pole, and if you try to split up your integral, those parts will diverge. In physics, it can give meaningful results if you integrate in some specific way to avoid those issues, but then the result can depend on the integration method.

This kind of integration is quite common in physics and is an important part in every math physics textbook. In general, we need to find out the principal value of this integration. That is where ambiguity originates from, at least I think it is. Then how to deal with such integrations? I mean, it is possible that sometimes it is not so clear as to which method we should take to do the integration.
 
Ray Vickson said:
You need to worry about how you define such an integral. Let's look at the integral over [0,∞), which we can regard as having f(x) in the numerator and (x^2-s^2) in the denominator; here, I write s instead of σ because it is easier. Assume s>0. The integral
[tex]J = \int_0^{\infty} \frac{f(x)}{x^2-s^2} \, dx[/tex] is improper, so let us try to define it through a limiting procedure. First, though, note that
[tex]J = \int_0^{\infty} \frac{f(x)-f(s)}{x^2-s^2} \, dx +<br /> \int_0^{\infty} \frac{f(s)}{x^2-s^2} \, dx.[/tex]
The first integral is OK, so we need worry only about the second one; that is, we need to worry about the value of
[tex]K = \int_0^{\infty} \frac{1}{x^2-s^2} \, dx.[/tex]
This integral is improper, so must be defined in terms of some type of limiting procedure. Let us try the following:
[tex]K = \lim_{a,b \rightarrow 0+} J_{ab}, \text{ where } J_{ab} = <br /> \int_0^{s-a} \frac{1}{x^2-s^2}\, dx <br /> + \int_{s+b}^{\infty} \frac{1}{x^2-s^2}\, dx.[/tex]
We have
[tex]J_{ab} = \frac{1}{2s} \ln \left(\frac{2s+b}{2s-a}\right) + \frac{1}{2s} \ln (a/b).[/tex]
If we let a and b go to zero independently, Jab need not have a limit, but if we let a and b go to zero in a fixed ration k = a/b, the limit is
[tex]\frac{1}{2s} \ln (k).[/tex] You can see from this that the value of k matters a lot.

The most common form of such improper integrals is the "symmetric" version (called the principle value), which takes a = b and gives
[tex]J = \lim_{a \rightarrow 0+} \int_0^{s-a} \frac{1}{x^2-s^2} \, dx <br /> + \int_{s+a}^{\infty} \frac{1}{x^2-s^2} \, dx = 0.[/tex]
However, the undeniable fact is that how you define it can affect its value.

As to your question about getting the two possible values π*exp(± i σ), well I would worry even more about getting a complex value for a real integral; the integrand becomes real in the limit as γ → 0, but the integral remains stubbornly complex, with imaginary part equal to ± π sin(σ).

RGV

Yeah, it is weird that the second method which let's [itex]\sigma→\sigma+i\gamma[/itex] seems reasonable but leads to a complex result. So is this ambiguity common in complex integration or it just happens under some condition?
 
karlzr said:
This kind of integration is quite common in physics
I know, and quantum field theory lectures have them everywhere. If it works, it can be fine. But you can get that ambiguity or completely meaningless results, if you do it "wrong" (= not in the precise way the specific calculation requires).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K