4
$\begingroup$

Consider the following integral: $$\int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{pe^{ipr}}{\sqrt{p^2 + m^2}} dp$$ where $r, m$ are positive constants.

This integral appears in a quantum field theory textbook by Peskin & Schroeder. I know that this integral can be solved using a change of variables or Bessel functions (as described here: Peskin and Schroeder, Eq 2.52 with a spacelike interval.).

In the text they consider the integrand as a complex function, and thus because of the square root function there are branch points at $\pm im$. The two obvious choices for branch cuts here would be the line segment $(-im, im)$ on the imaginary axis or $(-i\infty, -im) \cup (im, i\infty)$ also through the imaginary axis. Since the original integral is over the real line only the second branch cut makes sense. I understand everything until this point. The authors then say

To evaluate the integral we push the contour up to wrap around the upper branch cut.

and make the substitution $\rho = -ip$ to obtain $$2\int_m^\infty \frac{\rho e^{-\rho r}}{\sqrt{\rho^2 - m^2}} d\rho.$$

Here is a figure of what they're doing.

enter image description here

I am very confused on what they're doing. The first path from $(-\infty, \infty)$ does not cross a pole or a branch cut so what is the need for this substitution? How do they get the extra factor of 2 after doing the transformation? How did the lower limit of integration go from $-\infty$ to $m$? The lower limit is obvious from the picture but this doesn't follow from the transformation they gave.

More importantly how is any of this justified? The first contour $(-\infty, \infty)$ is not closed so how can we transform it to the U shaped contour they describe and expect the two integrals to be the same?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

It's a simple application of Cauchy's integral theorem. Consider the complex contour integral $$\oint\limits_C dz \frac{z\, e^{irz}}{\sqrt{z^2+m^2}}, \qquad r\gt 0,\tag{1} \label{1}$$ where the closed curve $C$ (taken counterclockwise) consists of the following pieces: $$\begin{align} \gamma_1&: \, p\to z(p)=p, \, -R\le p \le R, \\ \gamma_2&: \, \varphi \to z(\varphi) = R e^{i \varphi}\!,\, 0\lt \varphi \le \pi/2-\epsilon, \; (\epsilon >0), \\ \gamma_3&: \, \rho \to z(\rho)= i \rho+\epsilon , \, \text{ from} \;\rho=R \; \text{to} \; \rho=m,\\ \gamma_4&: \, s \to z(s)= im -s+\epsilon, \; 0\le s \le 2 \epsilon, \\ \gamma_5&: \, \rho \to z(\rho)= i \rho -\epsilon, \; m \le \rho \le R,\\ \gamma_6&: \varphi \to z(\varphi)=R e^{i\varphi}, \; \pi/2+\epsilon \le \varphi \lt \pi. \end{align} \tag{2} \label{2}$$ The branch cut of $w \to \sqrt{w}$ is chosen along the negative real axis, such that $\lim\limits_{\epsilon \downarrow 0} \sqrt{-|w|\pm i \epsilon}= \pm i |w|$.

As $C$ does not enclose any poles of the integrand, the integral \eqref{1} vanishes. In the limit $R\to \infty$, the contributions from $\gamma_2$ and $\gamma _6$ vanish because of the exponential damping factor $e^{-R r \sin{\varphi}}$ for $r \sin{\varphi} >0$. Taking finally also the limit $\epsilon \downarrow 0$, we are left with $$\underbrace{\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\! dp \frac{p\, e^{irp}}{\sqrt{p^2+m^2}}}_{\text{from} \; \gamma_1} \;\underbrace{-i \int\limits_m^\infty \! \! d \rho \frac{\rho e^{-r \rho}}{\sqrt{\rho^2-m^2}}}_{\text{from} \; \gamma_3} \; \underbrace{-i\int\limits_m^\infty \! \! d\rho \frac{\rho e^{-r \rho}}{\sqrt{\rho^2-m^2}}}_{\text{from} \; \gamma_5}=0, \tag{3} \label{3} $$ giving the desired result $$\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \! \! dp \frac{p \, e^{irp}}{\sqrt{p^2+m^2}} = 2i \int\limits_m^\infty \! \! d\rho \frac{\rho \, e^{-r \rho}}{\sqrt{\rho^2-m^2}}. \tag{4} \label{4}$$ (Note that a factor $i$ is missing in your last formula.)

Peskin and Schroeder use \eqref{4} to demonstrate that naive "relativistic" one-particle quantum mechanics, obtained by simply repacing $H=\vec{p}^2 /2m$ by $H=(\vec{p}^2+m^2)^{1/2}$, is in conflict with the requirement of causality. At the same time, they show how relativistic quantum field theory (being the correct description) avoids this problem.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much! Your explanation makes much more sense than theirs since you close the contour and so Cauchy's integral theorem can be used. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 12, 2024 at 3:01
  • $\begingroup$ @Hyperon Why does the integrand possess a branch point? Is it due to the radical? $\endgroup$ Commented May 6, 2024 at 22:36
  • $\begingroup$ @AlbertusMagnus $w \to \sqrt{w}$ has a branch point at $w=0$, such that $z \to \sqrt{z^2+m^2}$ has branch points at $z = \pm i m$, explaining the choice of the branch cut by Peskin & Schroeder (see figure in the question). $\endgroup$ Commented May 7, 2024 at 4:13
  • $\begingroup$ In equation (3), how do you get the negative sign in front of the last integral? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 5, 2024 at 2:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AlbertusMagnus You have to take into account $\lim\limits_{\epsilon \downarrow 0}\sqrt{(i \rho-\epsilon)^2+m^2}=\lim\limits_{\epsilon \downarrow 0}\sqrt{-\rho^2+m^2-i\epsilon}=-i\sqrt{\rho^2-m^2}$ (as $\rho^2-m^2 \gt 0$ for $\rho \gt m$) because of the branch cut. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 5, 2024 at 6:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.