Path integral of Richard Feynman

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the definition of the integral measures \( Dx \) and \( Dp \) in the context of Feynman's path integral formulation of quantum mechanics. It explores theoretical aspects and mathematical rigor related to the path integral approach.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how to define the integral measures \( Dx \) and \( Dp \) in Feynman's path integral formulation.
  • Another participant suggests that the question remains generally unsolved.
  • A different participant claims that Kiyosi Ito addressed the measure problem for the Feynman integral in 1960, providing a solution for specific cases involving non-relativistic Hamiltonians.
  • This participant also mentions that Ito's approach involves constructing probability densities for continuous trajectories and taking limits, indicating a complex mathematical framework.
  • Another contribution references Glimm's work, which converts the integrals into Wiener integrals through a "Wick rotation," while also noting that Cameron's theorem suggests the absence of appropriate measures in the general case.
  • Additional insights from Streater are mentioned, implying further complexity in the discussion of measures related to path integrals.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the status of the measure problem, with some asserting that it remains unresolved while others reference historical solutions and ongoing complexities. No consensus is reached regarding the definition of the integral measures.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the limitations in defining integral measures, the dependence on specific cases, and the unresolved nature of the problem in the general context of Feynman's path integral formulation.

Feynman
Messages
152
Reaction score
0
Good morning,
After Feynman formulation's of quantum mechanics, he expressed the propagator in function of path integral by this formula:

$G(x,t;x_i,t_i)=\int\int exp{\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{t_i}^{t}L(x,\dot{x},P)dt'}DxDp$
the question is how we can define the integral measure Dx and Dp?
thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Actually, Kiyosi Ito solved the measure problem for the Feynman integral in 1960 (see Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Volume II, U. Cal Press, 1961. pp 227-238) He solves the problem for a non-relativistic H for a free particle and for a particle in a constant force field. He also solves the measure problem for the Weiner Integral, essentiall the Feynman integral after a Wick rotation ( t-> it), which describes brownian motion/heat flow.

The idea is to build a sequence of probability densities (measures) for absolutely continuous trajectories, x(t), and take the appropriate limits. Very heavy math.

Ito also points out that M. Kac, and Gelfand and Yaglom had worked out rigorous approaches the Feynman's path integral. I would suspect that more has been done since that time.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
 
The most successful effort is detailed in glimm's big book wherein he converts the integrals into Wiener interals (which are properly defined) by means of what a physicist would call a"wick rotation" as mentioned above. My understading is that "cameron's thm" shows that there are no appropriate measures in the general case.

Streater has the following interesting things to say on the subject:

http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/lostcauses.html#IX
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K