Why there is 2[itex]\pi[/itex] in every dirac delta function

Click For Summary
In quantum field theory (QFT), the presence of the factor 2π in Dirac delta functions, such as (2π)δ(p-p₀), is tied to conventions regarding momentum-space integrals. The integral element in QFT is expressed as ∫d³p/(2π)³(1/2Eₚ), originating from the four-dimensional integral ∫d⁴p/(2π)⁴(2π)δ(p²-m²). This convention stems from the relationship between Fourier transforms and the normalization of Green's functions, where 2π factors are typically assigned to momentum-space integrals. The choice to include 2π in these contexts helps maintain consistent normalization for creation and annihilation operators, ensuring correct commutation relations. The variations in convention across different texts highlight the complexity and diversity in the treatment of these factors in quantum mechanics.
nadia8999
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
in QF, every dirac delta function is accompanied by 2\pi,i.e.(2\pi)\delta(p-p_0) or (2\pi)^3\delta(\vec{p}-\vec{p_0})

the intergral element in QF is \int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{1}{2E_P}, it comes from the integral element \int\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}(2\pi)\delta(p^2-m^2),I want to know why there is 2\piin the second equation. Is it a convention? Is so where does the 2\picomes from originally.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's a convention, where you shift all the 2 \pi factors around in quantum mechanics or quantum field theory and where to put the - sign in the exponential. In the HEP community the most common convention is to put all the 2\pi's to the momentum-space integrals, i.e., you define Green's functions etc. as

G(x)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^4} \frac{\mathrm{d}^4 p}{(2 \pi)^4} \tilde{G}(p) \exp(-\mathrm{i} p \cdot x),

where I used the west-coast-metric convention, i.e.,

p \cdot x=p_{\mu} x^{\mu}=p^0 x^0-\vec{p} \cdot \vec{x}.

Thus, the inverse reads

\tilde{G}(p)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^4} \mathrm{d}^4 x G(x) \exp(+\mathrm{i} p \cdot x).

The only exception are the field operators themselves. Their Fourier representation in terms of creation and annihilation operators read (here for the scalar Klein-Gordon field)

\hat{\phi}(x)=\int_{\mathrm{R}^3} \frac{\mathrm{d}^3 \vec{p}}{\sqrt{(2 \pi)^3 2 E_{\vec{p}}}} \left [\hat{a}(\vec{p}) \exp(-\mathrm{i} p \cdot x) + \hat{b}^{\dagger}(\vec{p}) \exp(+\mathrm{i} p \cdot x) \right]_{p^0=E_{\vec{p}}},

with E_{\vec{p}}=\sqrt{m^2+\vec{p}^2}.

The reason for this is to get simply normalized commutation relations for the creation and annihilation ops, e.g.,

[\hat{a}(\vec{p}),\hat{a}^{\dagger}(\vec{p}')]=\delta^{(3)}(\vec{p}-\vec{p}').

But for this latter issue you have nearly as many conventions as textbooks :-(.
 
One representation of the delta function is
\delta(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int dk e^{ikx}.
If the integral appears in some equation without the \frac{1}{2\pi},
you get 2\pi\delta.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K