Problem with Path Integral Expressions in Peskin And Schroeder Section 9.1

maverick280857
Messages
1,774
Reaction score
5
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

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]}

Now, as the authors point out, for the case when H = \frac{p^2}{2m} + V(q)[/tex], we can do the momentum integral, which is (taking the potential term out)<br /> <br /> \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]}<br /> <br /> where<br /> <br /> C(\epsilon) = \sqrt{\frac{2\pi\epsilon}{-im}}<br /> <br /> Now, I do not understand how the distribution of factors C(\epsilon) equation 9.13 (given below) comes up. To quote the authors:<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="" data-source="" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> Notice that we have one such factor for each time slice. Thus we recover expression (9.3), in discretized form, including the <i>proper</i> factors of C:<br /> <br /> &lt;br /&gt; 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]&lt;br /&gt; </div> </div> </blockquote><br /> So, my question is: how did we get this term:<br /> <br /> \left(\frac{1}{C(\epsilon)}\prod_{k}\int\frac{dq_{k}}{C(\epsilon)}\right)<br /> <br /> 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 C(\epsilon) out?<br /> <br /> Also, in equation 9.12,<br /> <br /> 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]}<br /> <br /> shouldn&#039;t we just write<br /> <br /> \left(\int \mathcal{D}q(t)\mathcal{D}p(t)\right)<br /> <br /> instead of<br /> <br /> \left(\prod_{i}\int \mathcal{D}q(t)\mathcal{D}p(t)\right)<br /> <br /> since the \mathcal{D} itself stands for \prod?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Another query I have concerns the derivation of equation 9.14, which is

\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]

from

\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]}

To quote the authors,

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

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

Specifically,

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

and so

\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)}
 
Anyone?
 
maverick280857 said:
What happens to the constant factor that originates from this step?
It gets absorbed into the definition of {\cal D}\phi, which changes (by that constant factor) from one equation to the next.
 
Avodyne said:
It gets absorbed into the definition of {\cal D}\phi, which changes (by that constant factor) from one equation to the next.

I see, thanks Avodyne...I just wanted to confirm that.
 
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top