7
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to prove the the vector extension of the identity \begin{equation} 1 = \int \left|\sum_i\frac{ \partial g }{ \partial a }\big| _{a =a _i} \right| \delta ( g ( a ) ) da \end{equation} where the sum is over all the zeros of $g$. The vector extension is: \begin{equation} 1 = \left( \prod _{i = 1 } ^n \int d a _i \right) \delta ^{ ( n ) } \left( {\mathbf{g}} ( {\mathbf{a}} ) \right) \det \left( \frac{ \partial g _i }{ \partial a _j } \right) \end{equation} where ${\mathbf{g}}$ and $ {\mathbf{a}} $ are $n$ dimensional vectors. This identity is used in Quantum Field Theory by Peskin and Schroeder (pg. 295).

I'm a physics graduate student and I don't know much formal mathematics. Any help on how to prove this would be greatly appreciated.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The 1-dimensional version doesn't seem to work for $g(a)=-a$, since $\delta(-a) = \delta(a)$. Also the $n$-dimensional case needs a sum over roots too I think. $\endgroup$ – Bob Terrell Feb 12 '14 at 21:41
  • $\begingroup$ @BobTerrell, Good point. I forgot an absolute value sign, thanks. I believe it should be okay now. I think the sum over the roots turns somehow into the determinate but I don't know how. The n-dimensional case expression I quoted agrees with the book I'm using. I think its correct. $\endgroup$ – JeffDror Feb 12 '14 at 21:48
  • $\begingroup$ These are all simple roots, too, so none of them would have a multiplicity greater than 1... $\endgroup$ – Alex Nelson Feb 12 '14 at 22:28
  • $\begingroup$ You ask about moving this question to phys.SE. It is not possible to move a question while a bounty is in progress. If at the end of the bounty you still haven't received a suitable answer, mention this again, and we'll see what we can do. $\endgroup$ – davidlowryduda Feb 17 '14 at 4:50
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I didn't know how it worked. I will do that! $\endgroup$ – JeffDror Feb 17 '14 at 10:48
5
+50
$\begingroup$

Here is a partial answer, in the case of a single root $\mathbf{a}_1$.

For each number $h>0$ you can define a function $d(\mathbf{x})$ to be zero outside the sphere $|\mathbf{x}|=h$, and 1/volume inside. When $h$ is small, $d$ is close to $\delta$ as distributions. Also, you can use an ellipsoid rather than a sphere.

$\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{a})$ is in such a disc if $\mathbf{a}$ is close enough to a zero of $\mathbf{g}$. Specifically, $$ \mathbf{g}(\mathbf{a}) = D\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{a}_1)(\mathbf{a}-\mathbf{a}_1) $$ nearly, when $\mathbf{a}$ is near $\mathbf{a}_1$, where $D\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{a}_1)$ means the Jacobian matrix $\left(\frac{\partial g _i}{\partial a _j}\right)$ evaluated at the root.

The matrix maps any small sphere centered at $\mathbf{a}_1$ to some ellipsoid centered at $\mathbf{0}$, and the ellipsoid volume is $|\det(D\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{a}_1))|$ times the sphere volume. So, $$ \delta^{(n)} \left( \mathbf{g}(\mathbf{a}) \right) $$ is well approximated by $$ \frac{1}{|\det(D\mathbf{g}(a_1))|({\rm sphere vol.})} $$ when $\mathbf{a}$ is in any small sphere centered at $\mathbf{a}_1$ and zero outside the sphere. Then $$ \delta^{(n)} \left( \mathbf{g}(\mathbf{a}) \right) |\det(D\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{a}_1))| $$ is nearly 1/sphere volume when $\mathbf{a}$ is inside, and 0 if outside. That is, it is nearly $\delta(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{a}_1)$.

I don't see how to handle more than one root and I don't see why your authors don't have absolute values on the derivative.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, this is more formal then I'm used to but I'll study your answer in detail soon. I see where you're coming from with regards to the absolute value signs... Maybe their is a typo. $\endgroup$ – JeffDror Feb 13 '14 at 3:29
3
$\begingroup$

The proof below uses only the chain rule (to change integration variables). It's what I, as a physics student, would write.

But first, I believe that you have an error in your original posting. I believe that the 1D identity should be: \begin{align} \int \Big( \sum_{\substack{\textrm{roots $a_i$}\\ \textrm{ of $g$}}} \frac{1}{g'(a)} \Big)^{-1} \delta(g(a)) da = 1. \end{align}

I know that you asked about the multidimensional case. However, let's review the one-dimensional case first. They are extremely similar.

One-dimensional Case

\begin{align} \int_{\substack{\textrm{small $a$-region} \\ \textrm{ containing root $a_i$}}} \delta (g(a)) da = &\int_{\substack{\textrm{small $g$-region} \\ \textrm{ corresponding to} \\ \textrm{ root $a_i$}}} \delta(g) \frac{1}{g'(a)} dg \end{align} We knew $g$ as a function $a$ (i.e., $g(a)$), but we can also think of $a$ as a function of $g$. This works because in the small region near the root, $g(a)$ is invertible. So we can think of $\frac{1}{g'(a)}$ as a function of $g$. The delta function extracts the value of this function near $g=0$. But in the small region we care about, $g=0$ means $a=a_i$. Thus: \begin{align} \int_{\substack{\textrm{small $a$-region} \\ \textrm{ containing root $a_i$}}} \delta (g(a)) da = \frac{1}{g'(a_i)} \end{align} Integrating over all space instead of a small region gives: \begin{align} \int \delta(g(a)) da = \sum_{\textrm{roots $a_i$ of $g$}} \frac{1}{g'(a_i)} \end{align} which is a special case of an identity you can find at the Wikipedia article on delta functions

We can rewrite this to obtain: \begin{align} \int \Big( \sum_{\substack{\textrm{roots $a_i$}\\ \textrm{ of $g$}}} \frac{1}{g'(a)} \Big)^{-1} \delta(g(a)) da = 1. \end{align} Which is (except for the inversion) the 1D identity that you had. You can bring the factor $\left( \sum_{\textrm{roots $a_i$ of $g$}} \right)^{-1}$ inside the sum because it's just a constant.

Multidimensional case The only difference in the multidimensional case is that when you change variables you need to use the Jacobian determinant (which Peskin and Schroeder call $\frac{\partial g_i }{\partial a_j}$). So, instead of $da = \frac{1}{g'(a)} dg$, we have \begin{align} \prod_k d a_k = \frac{1}{\det{ \frac{\partial g_i }{\partial a_j} } } \prod d g_k \end{align} Note that $\frac{\partial g_i }{\partial a_j}$ really stands for ``the matrix whose $ij$ entry is $\frac{\partial g_i }{\partial a_j}$''.

Hence the final identity from before becomes: \begin{align} \left( \prod_k \int d a_k \right) \Big( \sum_{\substack{\textrm{roots $\vec{a}_i$}\\ \textrm{ of $g$}}} \frac{1}{\det{ \frac{\partial g_i }{\partial a_j} } } \Big)^{-1} \delta^{(n)}(\vec{g}(\vec{a})) = 1. \end{align} where $\vec{a}_i$ are the roots of $\vec{g}(\vec{a})$ and each determinant is evaluated at the root $\vec{a}_i$.

If there's only one root , then the sum only has one term, and so inverting the terms is undone by inverting the sum: \begin{align} \left( \prod_k \int d a_k \right) \det{ \frac{\partial g_i }{\partial a_j} } \delta^{(n)}(\vec{g}(\vec{a})) = 1. \end{align} [Which is the identity on p295 of Peskin and Schroeder.] The fact that these two inversions cancel is nice, but I think it is what led you to the error in your original post.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Perfect! Thanks for this very clear proof. You are right that this is exactly what I had in mind. I spoke with BobTerrell in person yesterday as we coincidentally work at the same university and I understood his answer first so I awarded the bounty to him, but thanks again! $\endgroup$ – JeffDror Feb 20 '14 at 14:37

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.