Why does the Klein-Gordon propagator have a negative i in the exponential?

guillefix
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
Hello, I'm looking at the following computation from the Peskin and Schroeder's book:

See file attached

In the second page, the second term that's being integrated, I don't understand why it has a negative i in the exponential, that'll keep the energy term the same, but will swap the sign of the spatial terms, wouldn't it?

Thank you beforehand
 

Attachments

  • Qft.jpg
    Qft.jpg
    32.7 KB · Views: 637
Physics news on Phys.org
Below equation 2.53, they say when x-y is spacelike, a Lorentz transformation can take (x-y) to -(x-y).
 
First of all, it's important to keep in mind that x^0>y^0 is assumed, because otherwise the equation would be wrong, because (2.54) with the contour given is the retarded propagator, i.e.,
\mathrm{i} G_{\text{ret}}(x,y)=\Theta(x^0-y^0) \langle 0 |[\phi(x),\phi(y)]|0 \rangle.

Further, the minus sign in the second term of (2.54) is correct, and the handwritten "correction" wrong. You get this from closing the contour in the lower complex p^0 half-plane. You must close the contour there in order to make this additional part go away when carrying it to infinity, and that's why you get the commutator with this contour only if x^0>y^0. You come back to the original expression you started with by substituting \vec{p}'=-\vec{p} in this second term.

For space-like separations you get 0 as it must be, because for space-like separations of x and y you can find a frame of reference, where x^0=y^0 and there according to the canonical equal-time commutation relations the fields commute. Since the commutator function is a scalar function, it vanishes thus for all space-like separated arguments. This should be so because of the demand of microcausality for local observables.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!

Similar threads

Back
Top