2
$\begingroup$

Following the derivation of the massless free-boson two-point function given in Di Francesco, Mathieu and Sènèchal, I had an apparently stupid doubt. Look at the attached picture.

Where does the contribution $\lim_{\rho \rightarrow 0} \rho K'(\rho)$to the integral in Eq. (2.100) go? Do they suppose it is zero? In this case Eq.(2.101) is not consistent with this requirement.

The only possible explanation I found is that the behaviour in $\rho\sim 0$ is not well-defined but I am not satified.

Any ideas??

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What $\lim_{\rho\to0}$ are you talking about? I can see no limit there. $\endgroup$ – AccidentalFourierTransform Dec 4 '17 at 14:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $\int_0^r d\rho\, \partial/\partial\rho(\rho K'(\rho)) = rK'(r) - \lim_{\rho\rightarrow 0} \rho K'(\rho)$ in Eq.(2.100) $\endgroup$ – apt45 Dec 4 '17 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ Please stop making trivial edits to bump the question into the front page. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – AccidentalFourierTransform Dec 4 '17 at 17:04
  • $\begingroup$ @AccidentalFourierTransform So, do you now see the limit? $\endgroup$ – apt45 Dec 4 '17 at 17:08
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. You do have a point. I don't know the answer off the top of my head. $\endgroup$ – AccidentalFourierTransform Dec 4 '17 at 17:10
1
$\begingroup$

This term is not there because you are integrating over a disk, and the disk has only one boundary at $r$, and no boundary at $0$. Here is how to see it more explicitly. Note that $$ \int_D -g\partial^2K(x,0)d^2x = -g\int_{\partial D}\nabla K(x,0) \centerdot dS = -2\pi g r K'(r). $$ Then we see that if $K(r)$ has a $\log$-singularity near $r=0$, then $\partial^2K$ reproduces the delta-function, while $m^2 K$ is integrable and thus does not contribute to the delta-function. Overall, we conclude $$ 1=\int_D g(-\partial^2+m^2)K(x,0)d^2x = -g\int_{\partial D}\nabla K(x,0) \centerdot dS + \int_D g m^2 K(x,0)d^2x= 2\pi g\left\{ -r K'(r)+m^2\int_0^r d\rho\,\rho K(\rho)\right\}. $$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You can also see that the limit you are asking about is actually related to the coefficient of the delta-function, and thus if you add it, as you suggest, you would have to put $0$ in the left hand side, instead of $1$. $\endgroup$ – Peter Kravchuk Dec 5 '17 at 7:39
  • $\begingroup$ What if instead, I take as integration domain the set $B_{r}\setminus B_{t}$ where $B_{r,t}$ are the balls centered in $x$ with radius $r,t$ respectively with $r > t$? I would like to recover the same result for $t\rightarrow 0$. I guess the RHS is now 0 even in the limit $t\rightarrow 0$. Now the contribution of the integration in the second boundary $\rho=t$ contribuites, right? $\endgroup$ – apt45 Dec 5 '17 at 9:11
  • $\begingroup$ @apt45, yes, the second boundary will contribute, but the delta function won't, even in the limit, so you'll just get a different equation. But you can easily check that the two are consistent. $\endgroup$ – Peter Kravchuk Dec 5 '17 at 15:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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