# Why can we simply absorb the positive coefficient of $i\epsilon$ in a propagator?

+ 1 like - 0 dislike
2524 views

As far as I know, absorbing of the positive coefficient of $i\epsilon$ in a propagator seems to be a trivial operation without even the need of justification.

In Peskin page 286, he did this: $$k^0\rightarrow k^0(1+i\epsilon)$$ $$(k^2-m^2)\rightarrow (k^2-m^2+i\epsilon)$$

In M. Srednicki's Quantum Field Theory, page 51,

The factor in large parentheses is equal to $E^2-\omega^2+i(E^2+\omega^2)\epsilon$, and we can absorb the positive coefficient in to $\epsilon$ to get $E^2-\omega^2+i\epsilon$.

Why and does this kind of manipulation affect the final result of calculation?
Although $\frac{1}{k^2-m^2+i\epsilon k^2}-\frac{1}{k^2-m^2+i\epsilon}$ is infinitesimal, but the integration of such terms may lead to divergences, and this is my worry.

Also the presence of $k^0$ in the coefficient of $i\epsilon$ could potentially influence the poles of an integrand and consequently influence the validity of Wick Rotation.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-04 11:30 (UCT), posted by SE-user LYg
retagged May 4, 2014
Looks to me like Srednicki's doing $\epsilon'=(E^2+\omega^2)\epsilon$ and then dropping the prime in the latter equation.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-04 11:30 (UCT), posted by SE-user Kyle Kanos
@Kyle Kanos, But I don't think he can simply do that and pretend that ϵ′ doesn't depend on E anymore.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-04 11:30 (UCT), posted by SE-user LYg
Why would $\epsilon'$ not depend on $E$ anymore? If $\epsilon$ is a function of $E$ then $\epsilon'$ is a function of $E$ as well.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-04 11:30 (UCT), posted by SE-user Kyle Kanos
@Kyle Kanos, But their subsequent calculations all treat $\epsilon$ as independent of $k$, for example in the formalism of Wick Rotation, such dependence could influence the position of the poles in the $k^0$ plane and therefore influence the validity of Wick Rotation method.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-04 11:30 (UCT), posted by SE-user LYg

The size of the parameter $\epsilon$ does not matter, as long as it is infinitesimally small. Rescaling it by that function does not change this. Recall that the whole procedure is just a mathematical trick which allows us to perform a contour integral over the real axis of the complex plane. The shift is really arbitrary, as long as it is small. The precise size is should not affect any results we gain from it.
 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$ysic$\varnothing$OverflowThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). Please complete the anti-spam verification