Why Does Zee's Steepest-Descent Approximation Seem Incorrect?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter weirdoguy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Approximation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the steepest-descent approximation as presented in Zee's 'QFT in a Nutshell'. Participants are examining the implications of taking the limit of Planck's constant to be small and the resulting behavior of the approximation, particularly the term involving the exponential of corrections.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about Zee's approximation, particularly the term involving \( e^{-O(\hbar^{1/2})} \), suggesting it leads to an incorrect conclusion as \( \hbar \) approaches zero.
  • Another participant argues that as \( \hbar \) goes to zero, \( e^{-O(\hbar^{1/2})} \) approaches one, not infinity, and questions the interpretation of the \( O \) notation.
  • A subsequent reply clarifies that \( e^{-O(\hbar^{1/2})} \) approaches one, suggesting a misunderstanding of the exponential behavior in the limit.
  • Participants discuss the derivation of the \( e^{-O(\hbar^{1/2})} \) factor and its relation to higher-order terms in the Taylor expansion of the function \( f(q) \).
  • One participant presents a detailed expansion of the integral involved, attempting to show how the corrections arise and questioning the form of the exponent with \( -O(\hbar^{1/2}) \).
  • Another participant emphasizes that for a well-behaved function, the error in the Taylor expansion is dominated by the last included term, which may clarify the behavior of the approximation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the behavior of the approximation as \( \hbar \) approaches zero, with some asserting it approaches one while others initially believed it approached infinity. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact nature of the corrections and the validity of the approximation.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the need for a well-behaved function in the context of Taylor expansions, indicating that assumptions about the function's behavior may influence the conclusions drawn about the approximation.

weirdoguy
Messages
1,359
Reaction score
1,368
Hello everyone, my first post :shy:

I'm reading Zee's 'QFT in a Nutshell' and I came to one thing that bothers me - he's short discussion of steepest-descent approximation. I've known this thing for quite a long time now, but I've never seen the approximation of the corrections. Here is what he writes:

I = e^{-(1/\hbar)f(a)} (\frac {2\pi \hbar}{f''(a)})^{1/2} e^{-O(\hbar ^{1/2})}

Of course we take the limit in which Planck's constant is small, and that is where problem occurs. Because in this limit e^{-O(\hbar ^{1/2})} will approach infinity, and that is not what it should be like, right? Any thoughts about this issue? I just think that what he wrote is simply incorrect.
I tried to derive this approximation by not neglecting the cubic termis in (x-a), and I don't even see why there is a square root of Planck's constant...


Sorry for my english, it's been a long time since I wrote something in this language :shy:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why does it approach infinity? If ℏ goes to zero, the square root does the same, and the expression goes to e^0 = 1.
Or does the O mean something different?

##e^{-(1/\hbar)}## will go to zero.
 
And the other factor goes to zero ... and since 1 x 0 = 0 the expression vanishes.
 
weirdoguy said:
Of course we take the limit in which Planck's constant is small, and that is where problem occurs. Because in this limit ##e^{-O(\hbar ^{1/2})}## will approach infinity, and that is not what it should be like, right?
In the limit of small ħ, exp(-O(ħ1/2)) approaches one, not infinity. Perhaps you are thinking of exp(O(ħ-1/2)). That's a very different quantity from exp(-O(ħ1/2)).
 
Oh, my bad... I don't know why I thought that it goes to infinity, I had graph of a wrong function in my mind.

So now, I still have a problem - how did he get this exp(-O(ħ1/2)) factor? Because I don't see why it is a square root of ħ...
 
If you tell us, from where the book starts, we may be able to help you. Is it the application of this method to the generating functional in QFT. Then my QFT manuscript may help you too:

http://fias.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/publ/lect.pdf

the \hbar (loop) expansion is found on p. 125ff
 
It is probably applied later in the book, but it firstly appears in the very begining. I made a screen of everything that there is about this issue, not that much though...


And thank you vanhees71 for lecture, I'll check it later :smile:
 

Attachments

  • zee.jpg
    zee.jpg
    39.1 KB · Views: 561
weirdoguy said:
So now, I still have a problem - how did he get this exp(-O(ħ1/2)) factor? Because I don't see why it is a square root of ħ...
For a reasonably well-behaved function f(q), the error in that Taylor expansion is going to be dominated by the last included term, ##\frac 1 2 f''(q_0)(q-q_0)^2##.

Look at ##\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \exp\left(\frac{-1}{2h} f''(q_0)(q-q_0)^2\right)\, dq##. Sans some scale factors, that's just the Gaussian integral.
 
D H said:
Look at ##\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \exp\left(\frac{-1}{2h} f''(q_0)(q-q_0)^2\right)\, dq##. Sans some scale factors, that's just the Gaussian integral.

Well, I know, and I know how to integrate it. But still, I can't see why corrections are in the form of exponent with ##-O(\sqrt{\hbar})##.
But now - I tried to see what will happen if we won't neglect higher order terms. So, we have:
f(q)=f(a)+\frac{1}{2}f''(a)(q-a)^2+\frac{1}{3!}f'''(a)(q-a)^3+\ldots
I=\int_\mathbb{R}dq\exp\left(\frac{-1}{\hbar}f(a)+\frac{-1}{\hbar}\frac{1}{2}f''(a)(q-a)^2+\frac{-1}{\hbar}\frac{1}{3!}f'''(a)(q-a)^3+\ldots \right)
And now I leave the exponent with the quadratic term, and expand the exponent with qubic and higher terms in Taylor series:
I=\int_\mathbb{R}dq\exp\left(\frac{-1}{\hbar}f(a)+\frac{-1}{\hbar}\frac{1}{2}f''(a)(q-a)^2\right)\left[1+\left(\frac{-1}{3!\hbar}f'''(a)(q-a)^3+\ldots\right)+\left(\frac{-1}{3!\hbar}f'''(a)(q-a)^3+\ldots\right)^2 \right]
Now, ##I## is a sum, first summand is of course just our basic integral, which I will denote by ##I_0##:
I=I_0+\int_\mathbb{R}dq\exp\left(\frac{-1}{\hbar}f(a)+\frac{-1}{\hbar}\frac{1}{2}f''(a)(q-a)^2\right)\left[\left(\frac{-1}{3!\hbar}f'''(a)(q-a)^3+\ldots\right)+\left(\frac{-1}{3!\hbar}f'''(a)(q-a)^3+\ldots\right)^2 \right]
First non-zero integral will be the one with ##(q-a)^4##:
-\frac{f^{(IV)}(a)}{4!\hbar}e^{\frac{-f(a)}{\hbar}}\int_\mathbb{R}dqe^{-\frac{f&#039;&#039;(a)}{2\hbar}(q-a)^2}(q-a)^4=-\frac{3f^{(IV)}(a)}{4!\hbar}\left(\frac{\hbar}{f&#039;&#039;(a)}\right)^2 <br /> \sqrt{\frac{2\pi\hbar}{f&#039;&#039;(a)}}<br /> e^{\frac{-f(a)}{\hbar}}
Combining this with ##I_0## we get:
I=<br /> \sqrt{\frac{2\pi\hbar}{f&#039;&#039;(a)}}<br /> e^{\frac{-f(a)}{\hbar}}<br /> \left(1+C\cdot\hbar+\ldots\right)<br />
Where ##C## is a constant. I looked at terms with ##(q-a)^6## and it will give contribution to the terms with ##\hbar## and ##\hbar^2##. Anyway, the conclusion is that still I see no way of exponent correcions with ##-O(\hbar^{1/2})## :shy:
 
  • #10
weirdoguy said:
D H said:
Look at ##\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \exp\left(\frac{-1}{2h} f''(q_0)(q-q_0)^2\right)\, dq##. Sans some scale factors, that's just the Gaussian integral.
Well, I know, and I know how to integrate it. But still, I can't see why corrections are in the form of exponent with ##-O(\sqrt{\hbar})##.
But now - I tried to see what will happen if we won't neglect higher order terms.
Don't look at those higher order terms. Look instead at the last term that was included.

In quoting just the last part of my previous post, you omitted the key point of that post. Once again,

For a reasonably well-behaved function f(q), the error in that Taylor expansion is going to be dominated by the last included term, ##\frac 1 2 f''(q_0)(q-q_0)^2##.​

You don't need to look at those higher order derivatives in the expansion of f(q) if that function is "well-behaved". By well behaved I mean that there exists some finite C>0 such that for all q in the interval of interest,
\left|\sum_{r=n+1}^{\infty} \frac 1 {r!} f^{r}(a)(q-a)^r\right|&lt;C\left|\frac 1 {n!} f^{n}(a)(q-a)^n\right|

In other words, for a well behaved function, the last included term in the Taylor expansion (in this case, the second order derivative term) bounds the error. If this is the case, that exp(-O(ħ1/2)) multiplicative factor falls right out.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K