Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In the formula $$\int \frac {d^{4-2\epsilon} \ell} {(2\pi)^{4-2\epsilon}} \frac 1 {(\ell^2-\Delta)^2} = \frac i {(4\pi)^{2-\epsilon}} \Gamma(\epsilon) \left(\frac 1 \Delta\right)^\epsilon,$$ how should I deal with the case when $\Delta<0$?

share|improve this question

3 Answers 3

If $\epsilon>0$, you can start with a small imaginary part in the denominator of the integrand, $\Delta - i\delta$. After finishing the calculation, you take the limitation $\delta \rightarrow 0^+$. Then the result will be

$\displaystyle{\int \dfrac{d^{4-\epsilon}l}{(2\pi)^{4-\epsilon}}\dfrac{1}{(l^2 - \Delta + i\delta)^2} = \dfrac{i}{(4\pi)^{2-\epsilon}}\Gamma(\epsilon)\left(\dfrac{1}{\Delta -i\delta}\right)^{\epsilon}, \delta \rightarrow 0^+}.$

Note that the sign of $i\delta$ changes because of Wick rotation.The reason why we have to put $i\delta$ to the denominator can see easily from

$\left(\dfrac{1}{\Delta -i\delta} \right)^{\epsilon} = 1 - \epsilon \ln \left(\Delta - i\delta \right) + O(\epsilon^2), \delta \rightarrow 0^+.$

If $\Delta>0$, we can ignore $i\delta$ at the beginning. But if $\Delta<0$, $i\delta$ needs to be kept in the denominator because there is no definition of the logarithm with the negative argument. For further calculation, some useful relations will be needed

$ln(z_1.z_2)= ln z_1 + ln z_2 + \eta(z_1, z_2)$, $\eta (z_1, z_2)= 2 \pi i [Im(-\theta (z_1))Im(-\theta (z_2))Im(\theta (z_1 z_2))-Im(\theta (z_1))Im(\theta (z_2))Im(-\theta (z_1 z_2))]$

where $z_1, z_2$ are the complex numbers and $\theta$ is a sign function. In the multi-legs one-loop computations, such as three-point and four-point scalar integral, the result will depend on Spence function.

share|improve this answer

I point out that I agree with the preceding answer but the question here is just a mathematical one. The value of the integral will depend on the sign of $\Delta$. So, if $\Delta<0$ the integral value is not the one you wrote but

$$\int dx\frac{x^{3-2\epsilon}}{(x+\Delta)^2}=x^{2-2\epsilon}\left(\frac{1}{x-\Delta^2}\right)^{2\epsilon-2}\ _2F_1(2\epsilon-2, 2\epsilon-3, 2\epsilon-1, -\Delta^2/(x - \Delta^2))\times$$ $$\frac{1}{2-2\epsilon}$$

The beast that you see on the rhs is a hypergeometric function that does not converge when you take the limit of $x$ going to infinity. So, physical arguments given above are sound.

share|improve this answer

In complex calculus, one may compute powers – and other functions – for all negative or complex values of the argument. But it would lead to confusions and ambiguities and indeed, it's not needed.

Whenever the theory is stable, it's guaranteed that $\Delta$ in these d.r. integrals ends up positive. A typical value of $\Delta$ for Feynman-parameterized integrals is an example from a 4-point diagram (imagine 2 to 2 scattering) $$ \Delta = m^2 - x(1-x)q^2 $$ Now, $m^2$ is positive because we don't have tachyons and $x(1-x)$ is between $0$ and $1/4$. The only risk how the second term could beat $m^2$ and make $\Delta$ negative is that $q$ is hugely timelike, with length over $2m$. But it really can't happen because $q$ is the sum of two external momenta. Timelike $2m$ length is really the maximum and in most cases, $q$ will end up shorter or spacelike. The UV region we're integrating corresponds to very long spacelike $q$ (all directions in the Euclideanized spacetime are spacelike) for which $\Delta$ is high and positive because the spacelike vectors have negative signature above.

I can't provide you with a general proof (it may be easy, however) but I am pretty sure that the negative-$\Delta$ problem doesn't arise in any loop diagrams.

share|improve this answer
I have an example where $\Delta$ is negative. Consider the one-loop EM vertex correction for fermion-fermion scattering in QED. Ignoring fermion masses, we have $\Delta=-x(1-x)q^2$, where $q^2$ is the photon virtuality. Now $q^2$ is -ve for t-channel elastic scattering, but +ve for s-channel scattering, so $\Delta$ may have either signs. –  felix Dec 17 '11 at 8:21

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.