Problem with Path Integral Expressions in Peskin And Schroeder Section 9.1

In summary, the conversation discusses doubts about the path integral expressions given in Section 9.1 of Peskin and Schroeder. The discussion focuses on the form of the propagator for a Weyl ordered Hamiltonian and the derivation of equations 9.13, 9.14, and 9.15. The conversation also addresses the integration measure of \mathcal{D}\phi and how the constant factor originating from the Gaussian integral over \pi is absorbed into the definition of \mathcal{D}\phi.
  • #1
maverick280857
1,789
4
Hi again everyone,

I have some doubts about the path integral expressions given in Section 9.1 of Peskin and Schroeder (pg 281 and 282).

For a Weyl ordered Hamiltonian H, the propagator has the form given by equation 9.11, which reads

[tex]U(q_{0},q_{N};T) = \left(\prod_{i,k}\int dq_{k}^{i}\int \frac{dp_{k}^{i}}{2\pi}\right)\exp{\left[i\sum_{k}\left(\sum_{i}p_{k}^{i}(q_{k+1}^{i}-q_{k}^{i})-\epsilon H\left(\frac{q_{k+1}+q_{k}}{2},p_{k}\right)\right)\right]}[/tex]

Now, as the authors point out, for the case when [itex]H = \frac{p^2}{2m} + V(q)[/tex], we can do the momentum integral, which is (taking the potential term out)

[tex]\int\frac{dp_{k}}{2\pi}\exp{\left(i\left[p_k(q_{k+1}-q_{k})-\epsilon\frac{p_{k}^2}{2m}\right]\right) = \frac{1}{C(\epsilon)}\exp{\left[\frac{im}{2\epsilon}(q_{k+1}-q_{k})^2\right]}[/tex]

where

[tex]C(\epsilon) = \sqrt{\frac{2\pi\epsilon}{-im}}[/tex]

Now, I do not understand how the distribution of factors [itex]C(\epsilon)[/itex] equation 9.13 (given below) comes up. To quote the authors:

Notice that we have one such factor for each time slice. Thus we recover expression (9.3), in discretized form, including the proper factors of [itex]C[/itex]:

[tex]
U(q_{a},q_{b};T) = \left(\frac{1}{C(\epsilon)}\prod_{k}\int\frac{dq_{k}}{C(\epsilon)}\right)\exp\left[i\sum_{k}\left(\frac{m}{2}\frac{(q_{k+1}-q_{k})^2}{\epsilon}-\epsilon V\left(\frac{q_{k+1}+q_{k}}{2}\right)\right)\right]
[/tex]

So, my question is: how did we get this term:

[tex]\left(\frac{1}{C(\epsilon)}\prod_{k}\int\frac{dq_{k}}{C(\epsilon)}\right)[/tex]

PS -- Is it because the momentum index goes from 0 to N-1 and the coordinate index goes from 1 to N-1? The momentum integral product produces N terms, so to write the coordinate integral with the same indexing as before (in the final expression), i.e. k = 1 to N-1, we factor a [itex]C(\epsilon)[/itex] out?

Also, in equation 9.12,

[tex]U(q_{a},q_{b};T) = \left(\prod_{i}\int \mathcal{D}q(t)\mathcal{D}p(t)\right)\exp{\left[i\int_{0}^{T}dt\left(\sum_{i}p^{i}\dot{q}^{i}-H(q,p)\right)\right]}[/tex]

shouldn't we just write

[tex]\left(\int \mathcal{D}q(t)\mathcal{D}p(t)\right)[/tex]

instead of

[tex]\left(\prod_{i}\int \mathcal{D}q(t)\mathcal{D}p(t)\right)[/tex]

since the [itex]\mathcal{D}[/itex] itself stands for [itex]\prod[/itex]?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Another query I have concerns the derivation of equation 9.14, which is

[tex]\langle \phi_{b}({\bf{x}})|e^{-iHT}|\phi_{a}({\bf{x}})\rangle = \int \mathcal{D}\phi\exp\left[i\int_{0}^{T}d^{4}x \mathcal{L}\right][/tex]

from

[tex]\langle \phi_{b}({\bf{x}})|e^{-iHT}|\phi_{a}({\bf{x}})\rangle = \int\mathcal{D}\phi\int\mathcal{D}\pi \exp{\left[i\int_{0}^{T}d^{4}x\left(\pi\dot{\phi}-\frac{1}{2}\pi^2-\frac{1}{2}(\nabla\phi)^2-V(\phi)\right)\right]}[/tex]

To quote the authors,

The integration measure [itex]\mathcal{D}\phi[/itex] in (9.14) again involves an awkward constant, which we do not write explicitly.

Now, I am a bit confused about the meaning of [itex]\mathcal{D}\phi[/itex] in these two equations. In going from the second equation to the first, we evaluate a Gaussian integral over [itex]\pi[/itex]. What happens to the constant factor that originates from this step?

Specifically,

[tex]\int \exp{(-ax^2 + bx + c)} = \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{a}}\exp{\left(\frac{b^2}{4a} +c\right)}[/tex]

and so

[tex]\int \exp{\int d^{4}x(-a\phi^2 + b\phi + c)} = \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{a}}\exp{\int d^{4}x\exp{\left(\frac{b^2}{4a} +c\right)}[/tex]
 
  • #3
Anyone?
 
  • #4
maverick280857 said:
What happens to the constant factor that originates from this step?
It gets absorbed into the definition of [itex]{\cal D}\phi[/itex], which changes (by that constant factor) from one equation to the next.
 
  • #5
Avodyne said:
It gets absorbed into the definition of [itex]{\cal D}\phi[/itex], which changes (by that constant factor) from one equation to the next.

I see, thanks Avodyne...I just wanted to confirm that.
 

1. What is the problem with path integral expressions in Peskin and Schroeder Section 9.1?

The problem with path integral expressions in Peskin and Schroeder Section 9.1 is that they do not converge for certain types of quantum field theories, leading to mathematical inconsistencies and difficulties in making meaningful calculations.

2. Why is this problem significant in the field of physics?

This problem is significant because path integral expressions are a fundamental tool in quantum field theory, and their convergence is necessary for making accurate predictions and understanding the behavior of physical systems. The inability to properly use these expressions can hinder progress in theoretical physics.

3. What are some proposed solutions to this problem?

One proposed solution is to use a regularization technique, such as cutoff regularization, to make the path integral expressions convergent. Another approach is to use alternative mathematical formulations, such as the lattice regularization method.

4. Are there any current advancements in addressing this issue?

Yes, there are ongoing efforts to find more comprehensive and efficient ways to deal with the convergence problem in path integral expressions. Some recent advancements include the use of supersymmetry and holography to better understand and regulate these expressions.

5. How does the problem with path integral expressions affect our understanding of the universe?

The issue with path integral expressions highlights the limitations and complexities of our current understanding of quantum field theory. It also emphasizes the importance of finding accurate and reliable methods for making calculations in this field, as our understanding of the universe is heavily dependent on these theories.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
13
Views
755
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
744
Replies
1
Views
638
Replies
3
Views
783
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
9
Views
793
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
1K
Back
Top