Proving Feynman Identity with Induction

In summary, to show that \frac{1}{A_1 A_2 \dots A_n}=(n-1)! \int_0^1 dx_1 \dots \int_0^1 dx_n \frac{\delta(1-x_1- \dots - x_n)}{(x_1A_1 + \dots + x_nA_n)^n}, you can use the relationship A^{-1}=\int_0^\infty d \alpha e^{-\alpha A} and change to projective coordinates to obtain \frac{1}{A_1 \dots A_n} = \int_0^\infty d \alpha_1 \dots \int_0^\in
  • #1
latentcorpse
1,444
0
I'm supposed to use the relationship [itex]A^{-1}=\int_0^\infty d \alpha e^{-\alpha A}[/itex] to show that

[itex]\frac{1}{A_1 A_2 \dots A_n}=(n-1)! \int_0^1 dx_1 \dots \int_0^1 dx_n \frac{\delta(1-x_1- \dots - x_n)}{(x_1A_1 + \dots + x_nA_n)^n}[/itex]

I decided that I should try and do this inductively.

So far I have managed to prove the base case n=2 successfully.

Then I made the inductive hypothesis that it will hold for [itex]n=k-1[/itex]

And then I considered [itex]n=k[/itex] and got

[itex]\frac{1}{A_1 \dots A_{k-1}A_k}=\frac{1}{A_1 \dots A_{k-1}} \frac{1}{A_k} = (k-2)! \int_0^1 dx_1 \dots \int_0^1 dx_{k-1} \frac{\delta(1-x_1 - \dots - x_{k-1})}{(x_1A_1 + \dots + x_{k-1}A_{k-1})^{k-1}} \times \int_0^\infty d \alpha e^{-\alpha A_k}[/itex]

However, I don't seem to have any way of going anywhere from here?

Thanks for any help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You don't want to use induction. Write

[tex]
\frac{1}{A_1\cdots A_n} = \int_0^\infty d\alpha_1 \cdots \int_0^\infty d\alpha_n e^{-\sum_i \alpha_i A_i}[/tex]

and change to projective coordinates

[tex]\alpha_i = \alpha x_i, ~~\sum_i x_i=1.[/tex]
 
  • #3
fzero said:
You don't want to use induction. Write

[tex]
\frac{1}{A_1\cdots A_n} = \int_0^\infty d\alpha_1 \cdots \int_0^\infty d\alpha_n e^{-\sum_i \alpha_i A_i}[/tex]

and change to projective coordinates

[tex]\alpha_i = \alpha x_i, ~~\sum_i x_i=1.[/tex]

So that gives [itex]\frac{1}{A_1 \dots A_n} = \int_0^\infty d \alpha_1 \dots \int_0^\infty e^{-\alpha \sum_i x_i A_i}[/itex]

So I reckon that the sum to 1 gives the 1 in the delta function but I don't know what the connection is.

Also, I tried changing the variable of integration using [itex]\alpha_i = \alpha x_i[/itex] and [itex]d \alpha_i = dx_i[/itex] - whilst this keeps the lower limit of integration at 0, the upper one becomes [itex]\frac{\infty}{\alpha}=\infty \neq 1[/itex] as required - what am i doing wrong here?
 
  • #4
The [tex]x_i[/tex] range from 0 to 1 from the constraint. Also with the contraint, the measure is

[tex] d\alpha_1 \cdots d\alpha_n = d\alpha dx_1\cdots dx_n \delta\left( \sum_i x_i -1 \right).[/tex]
 
  • #5
fzero said:
The [tex]x_i[/tex] range from 0 to 1 from the constraint. Also with the contraint, the measure is

[tex] d\alpha_1 \cdots d\alpha_n = d\alpha dx_1\cdots dx_n \delta\left( \sum_i x_i -1 \right).[/tex]

I don't really follow.

Surely the [itex]x_i[/itex] just have to sum to 1. So couldn't we have them being say 4 and -3 (of a n=2 example)? These sum to 1 and are both outside the range 0 to 1. Or are they constrained to being positive since [itex]\alpha_i[/itex] has a positive range?

Secondly, where did that measure come from?
 
  • #6
latentcorpse said:
I don't really follow.

Surely the [itex]x_i[/itex] just have to sum to 1. So couldn't we have them being say 4 and -3 (of a n=2 example)? These sum to 1 and are both outside the range 0 to 1. Or are they constrained to being positive since [itex]\alpha_i[/itex] has a positive range?

Yes, you have to look at the ranges of the original variables and that [tex]0<\alpha<\infty[/tex].

Secondly, where did that measure come from?

If you compute

[tex] d\alpha_i = x_i d\alpha + \alpha d x_i [/tex]

you can compute the new volume form and obtain the new measure. However, you can reproduce this by integrating over the [tex](n+1)^\text{th}[/tex] variable with a delta function constraint. As a simple example, you could try to show that

[tex] \int_0^\infty dx \int_0^\infty dy \delta(x^2+y^2 -1) [/tex]

gives the correct measure on the unit circle.
 
  • #7
fzero said:
Yes, you have to look at the ranges of the original variables and that [tex]0<\alpha<\infty[/tex].



If you compute

[tex] d\alpha_i = x_i d\alpha + \alpha d x_i [/tex]

you can compute the new volume form and obtain the new measure. However, you can reproduce this by integrating over the [tex](n+1)^\text{th}[/tex] variable with a delta function constraint. As a simple example, you could try to show that

[tex] \int_0^\infty dx \int_0^\infty dy \delta(x^2+y^2 -1) [/tex]

gives the correct measure on the unit circle.

Why is [itex]0 < \alpha < \infty[/itex]?

And I'm still a bit lost with this delta business. You say I can reproduce the measure using
[tex] d\alpha_i = x_i d\alpha + \alpha d x_i [/tex] - I don't really know how to go about this?

And in your example, why isn't your delta function [itex]\delta(1-x-y)[/itex] like we're trying to get in the final result?

Thanks.
 
  • #8
latentcorpse said:
Why is [itex]0 < \alpha < \infty[/itex]?

[tex]\alpha[/tex] is like a radial variable. The [tex]x_i[/tex] are affine coordinates.

And I'm still a bit lost with this delta business. You say I can reproduce the measure using
[tex] d\alpha_i = x_i d\alpha + \alpha d x_i [/tex] - I don't really know how to go about this?

You should probably look up what's called the Jacobian matrix, unless you know how to compute the volume form, which encodes the same information.

And in your example, why isn't your delta function [itex]\delta(1-x-y)[/itex] like we're trying to get in the final result?

Thanks.

Because I want to get the standard measure on the circle. It turns out that demanding [tex]x^2+y^2=1[/tex] or [tex]x+y=1[/tex] lead to the same space topologically, but that wasn't what I wanted to demonstrate.
 
  • #9
you forgot an [tex] \alpha^{n-1} [/tex] in the measure otherwise there is no [tex] (\sum x_i A_i)^{-n} [/tex]
 
  • Like
Likes Matias

FAQ: Proving Feynman Identity with Induction

1. What is the Feynman Identity and why is it important in physics?

The Feynman Identity is a mathematical formula used in quantum field theory to calculate scattering amplitudes. It is important because it allows us to simplify complex calculations and make predictions about particle interactions.

2. How is the Feynman Identity proven with induction?

The proof of the Feynman Identity using induction involves breaking down the formula into smaller parts and showing that it holds for each individual part. Then, by showing that it holds for the initial case and that it can be extended to the next case, we can conclude that it holds for all cases, proving the identity.

3. Can the Feynman Identity be used in other fields besides physics?

Yes, the Feynman Identity has applications in other fields such as finance and computer science. It can be used to calculate probabilities and make predictions in various systems.

4. What are some limitations of using the Feynman Identity in calculations?

One limitation is that it can only be applied to systems that can be described using quantum field theory. It also may not be accurate in extreme conditions, such as at very high energies or in highly curved spacetimes.

5. Are there any current research developments related to the Feynman Identity?

Yes, there are ongoing efforts to extend the Feynman Identity to include more complex systems and to improve its accuracy in certain conditions. There is also research being done on alternative approaches to calculating scattering amplitudes in quantum field theory.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
59
Views
8K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top