Path integrals and propagators

Klaus_Hoffmann
Messages
85
Reaction score
1
we know that for the SE equation we find the propagator

(i\hbar \partial _{t} - \hbar ^{2} \nabla +V(x,y,z) )K(x,x')=\delta (x-x')

with m=1/2 for simplicity

then we know that the propagator K(x,x') may be obtained from the evaluation of the Path integral.

K(x,x')=C \int \mathcal D[x] e^{iS[x]/\hbar} (sum over all path X(t) )

my question is, since we can't know the evaluation of the path integral exactly, but give a WKB approach of this if we name the result of the path integral by K_{WKB}(x,x').

then my question is if at least as an approximation this function satisfies.

(i\hbar \partial _{t} - \hbar ^{2} \nabla +V(x,y,z) )K_{WKB}(x,x')=\delta (x-x')

the notation WKB means that we have evaluated the propagator and so on in a semiclassical way.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Klaus_Hoffmann said:
we know that for the SE equation we find the propagator

(i\hbar \partial _{t} - \hbar ^{2} \nabla +V(x,y,z) )K(x,x')=\delta (x-x')

with m=1/2 for simplicity

then we know that the propagator K(x,x') may be obtained from the evaluation of the Path integral.

K(x,x')=C \int \mathcal D[x] e^{iS[x]/\hbar} (sum over all path X(t) )
you seem to have lost your x and x' dependence... at least on the RHS of the above equation
 
Klaus_Hoffmann said:
my question is, since we can't know the evaluation of the path integral exactly, but give a WKB approach of this if we name the result of the path integral by K_{WKB}(x,x').

then my question is...

twice you said "my question is" but you never asked a question.
 
Klaus_Hoffmann said:
we know that for the SE equation we find the propagator

(i\hbar \partial _{t} - \hbar ^{2} \nabla +V(x,y,z) )K(x,x')=\delta (x-x')

with m=1/2 for simplicity

Isn't that K(x,x') a Green's function? I think the propagator is the 'operator inverse' of the Green's funciton.
 
no. "propagator" and "green's function" are synonymous.
 
Yeah I remember now, propagator = greens function = operator inverse of the field equation operator
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top