Timeline for Path integral calculations $e^{i\omega 0^+}$
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 31, 2021 at 1:17 | vote | accept | Andrew Yuan | ||
| Aug 31, 2021 at 1:16 | answer | added | Andrew Yuan | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 3, 2021 at 8:14 | vote | accept | Andrew Yuan | ||
| Aug 31, 2021 at 1:06 | |||||
| Jun 25, 2019 at 21:28 | vote | accept | Andrew Yuan | ||
| Feb 3, 2021 at 8:14 | |||||
| May 3, 2019 at 17:57 | answer | added | CR Drost | timeline score: 6 | |
| May 2, 2019 at 23:53 | history | edited | DanielSank | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Remove decoy question
|
| May 2, 2019 at 23:41 | history | edited | Andrew Yuan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
provided example
|
| May 2, 2019 at 22:53 | comment | added | DanielSank | The question written here very specifically asks why $0^+$ instead of $0^-$, which is not the same as asking why there's an exponential function in the numerator in the first place. The difference between $0^+$ and $0^-$ is pretty much what's explained in the question I linked. Perhaps it would be best to be very clear about exactly what you want to know :-) | |
| May 2, 2019 at 22:33 | comment | added | Andrew Yuan | @DanielSank I don't think the two are the same, because in the given link, the integral is actually rigorously well-defined as an improper integral or principle valued integral. This is due to the fact that the poles are simple and the rational function has a zero at $\infty$. The $e^{-ik_0 z_0}$ also seems to come from somewhere, whereas in my case, the convention $e^{i\omega 0^+}$ seems somewhat arbitrary. | |
| May 2, 2019 at 20:38 | comment | added | DanielSank | I think this is almost a duplicate of complex-integration-by-shifting-the-contour. | |
| May 2, 2019 at 20:35 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| May 2, 2019 at 20:05 | review | First posts | |||
| May 2, 2019 at 20:17 | |||||
| May 2, 2019 at 20:05 | history | asked | Andrew Yuan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |