Checking My Understanding: Lagrangian & Path Integral Formulation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Lagrangian and path integral formulation in quantum mechanics, focusing on the relationship between the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulations, as well as the implications of potential energy being a function of position. Participants explore mathematical expressions and derivations related to these concepts, seeking clarification and understanding of the underlying principles.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a series of equations relating the Hamiltonian operator to position space and discusses the implications of these transformations.
  • Another participant questions the validity of swapping the order of exponential terms in the equations, suggesting that the Hamiltonian in operator form and its position space representation are not equivalent.
  • Concerns are raised about the complexity introduced by the potential energy being a function of position, with participants noting that this complicates the evaluation of integrals and necessitates different techniques.
  • A participant suggests that for free particles, a completeness relation can simplify calculations, but this approach fails when potential energy is included.
  • Further discussion includes a reference to a manuscript that provides insights into the path integral formulation and its connection to the Lagrangian approach.
  • Another participant attempts to relate their derivation to a term extracted from the manuscript, indicating similarities in their approaches.
  • It is noted that integrating out momentum in the Hamiltonian version can lead to the classical Lagrangian, but interactions may yield different results.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the mathematical manipulations involving the Hamiltonian and the implications of potential energy being a function of position. There is no consensus on the correctness of the initial derivations, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to these problems.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for careful treatment of operator forms and the implications of potential energy in their calculations, indicating that assumptions about the simplicity of certain expressions may not hold in more complex scenarios.

redtree
Messages
335
Reaction score
15
I note the following:

\begin{equation}

\begin{split}

\langle \vec{x}| \hat{U}(t-t_0) | \vec{x}_0 \rangle&=\langle \vec{x}| e^{-2 \pi i \frac{\mathcal{H}}{\hbar} (t-t_0)} | \vec{x}_0 \rangle

\\

&=e^{-2 \pi i \frac{\mathcal{H}}{\hbar} (t-t_0)} \delta(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_0)

\end{split}

\end{equation}Given:

\begin{equation}

\begin{split}

\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_0) &= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\vec{k} e^{2 \pi i \vec{k}(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_0)}

\end{split}

\end{equation}Such that:

\begin{equation}

\begin{split}

\langle \vec{x}| e^{-2 \pi i \frac{\mathcal{H}}{\hbar} (t-t_0)} | \vec{x}_0 \rangle&=e^{-2 \pi i \frac{\mathcal{H}}{\hbar} (t-t_0)} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\vec{k} e^{2 \pi i \vec{k}(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_0)}

\\

&=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\vec{k} e^{2 \pi i \vec{k}(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_0)} e^{-2 \pi i \frac{\mathcal{H}}{\hbar} (t-t_0)}

\\

&=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\vec{k} e^{2 \pi i \left(\vec{k}(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_0)- \frac{\mathcal{H}}{\hbar} (t-t_0)\right)}

\\

&=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\vec{k} e^{2 \pi i (t-t_0)\left(\vec{k}\frac{(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_0)}{(t-t_0)}- \frac{\mathcal{H}}{\hbar} \right)}

\end{split}

\end{equation}Given ##\vec{v}=\frac{(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_0)}{(t-t_0)}##:

\begin{equation}

\begin{split}

\langle \vec{x}| e^{-2 \pi i \frac{\mathcal{H}}{\hbar} (t-t_0)} | \vec{x}_0 \rangle&=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\vec{k} e^{2 \pi i (t-t_0)\left(\vec{k}\vec{v}- \frac{\mathcal{H}}{\hbar} \right)}

\end{split}

\end{equation}Given:

\begin{equation}

\begin{split}

\frac{\mathcal{H}}{\hbar}&=\frac{T}{\hbar} + \frac{V}{\hbar}

\end{split}

\end{equation}Where:

\begin{equation}

\begin{split}

\frac{T}{\hbar}&=\frac{\vec{p}^2}{2 m \hbar}

\end{split}

\end{equation}Given ##\vec{p}=\hbar\vec{k}##:

\begin{equation}

\begin{split}

\frac{T}{\hbar}&=\frac{\hbar}{2 m }\vec{k}^2

\end{split}

\end{equation}Thus:

\begin{equation}

\begin{split}

\frac{\mathcal{H}}{\hbar}&=\frac{\hbar}{2 m }\vec{k}^2 + \frac{V}{\hbar}

\end{split}

\end{equation}Such that:

\begin{equation}

\begin{split}

\langle \vec{x}| e^{-2 \pi i \frac{\mathcal{H}}{\hbar} (t-t_0)} | \vec{x}_0 \rangle&=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\vec{k} e^{2 \pi i (t-t_0)\left(\vec{k}\vec{v}- \frac{\hbar}{2 m }\vec{k}^2 - \frac{V}{\hbar} \right)}

\end{split}

\end{equation}Where:

\begin{equation}

\begin{split}

\vec{k}\vec{v}&=\frac{m}{m}\vec{k}\vec{v}

\\

&=\frac{\vec{k}\vec{p}}{m}

\\

&=\frac{\hbar \vec{k}^2}{m}

\end{split}

\end{equation}Such that:

\begin{equation}

\begin{split}

\langle \vec{x}| e^{-2 \pi i \frac{\mathcal{H}}{\hbar} (t-t_0)} | \vec{x}_0 \rangle&=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\vec{k} e^{2 \pi i (t-t_0)\left(\frac{\hbar \vec{k}^2}{m}- \frac{\hbar}{2 m }\vec{k}^2 - \frac{V}{\hbar} \right)}

\\

&=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\vec{k} e^{2 \pi i (t-t_0)\left(\frac{\hbar \vec{k}^2}{2m} - \frac{V}{\hbar} \right)}

\\

&=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\vec{k} e^{2 \pi i (t-t_0)\left(\frac{T}{\hbar} - \frac{V}{\hbar} \right)}

\end{split}

\end{equation}Given the Lagrangian ##\mathcal{L}= T- V##:

\begin{equation}

\begin{split}

\langle \vec{x}| e^{-2 \pi i \frac{\mathcal{H}}{\hbar} (t-t_0)} | \vec{x}_0 \rangle&=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\vec{k} e^{2 \pi i (t-t_0)\left(\frac{\mathcal{L}}{\hbar} \right)}

\end{split}

\end{equation}

I want to make sure that I am understanding this correctly. Is this correct? If not, where is my mistake?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First I would like to say that the Hamiltonian operators appearing in the first and second line in eq. (1) are not really the same. In the first line the Hamiltonian is still in operator form while in the second the it's already expressed in position space. In equation (3), I don't think you can arbitrarily swap the order of the exponential containing ##x-x_0## and that containing ##H##. If the one with ##x-x0## follows the one with ##H## then it's supposed to be understood as ##\exp \left( 2\pi i H(t-t_0)/\hbar \right)## acting on ##\exp(ik(x-x_0))##.
 
It's not as simple since ##V## is a function of ##\hat{x}##. For the free particle you can of course simply insert a unit operator in terms of the completeness relation of momentum eigenstates (I set ##\hbar=h/2 \pi=1## for simplicity):
$$\langle \vec{x}|\exp(-\mathrm{i} t \hat{\vec{p}^2}/(2m)|\vec{x}' \rangle=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{p} \langle \vec{x}|\exp(-\mathrm{i} t \hat{\vec{p}^2}/(2m)|\vec{p} \rangle \langle p|\vec{x}' \rangle=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{p} \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^3} \exp[-\vec{p}^2 t /(2m)] \exp(\mathrm{i} \vec{p}(\vec{x}-\vec{x}').$$
Now you regularize the integral by making ##t \rightarrow t-\mathrm{i} \epsilon## with ##\epsilon>0##. Then you get a Gaussian integral which can be solved easily.

For ##V \neq 0## this trick doesn't work anymore, and you have to use other techniques. To make contact with the action in Lagrange form the Feynman path-integral approach is a good one. You find a simple introduction in my QFT manuscript (also for non-relativistic QT in Chpt. 1):

http://th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/publ/lect.pdf
 
vanhees71 said:
It's not as simple since ##V## is a function of ##\hat{x}##.

I apologize for not seeing, but how does ##V = V(\vec{x})## change things?
 
You'd need to insert the more complicated complete set of energy eigenstates of the complete Hamiltonian including the potential, and it's usually not so simple to evaluate the corresponding sum/integral. It can be done, e.g., for the harmonic oscillator.
 
Thank you for your reply. Your manuscript is very good.From your manuscript, equation 1.56, I extract the following term:

\begin{equation}

\begin{split}

\text{exp}\left[-i\Delta t \sum_{k=1}^{N} \frac{\vec{p}_{k}^2}{2 m}+ V(\vec{x}_{k}) + i \sum_{k=1}^{N} \vec{p}_{k}(\vec{x}_{k+1}-\vec{x}_{k})\right]

\end{split}

\end{equation}For simplicity and the purposes of this discussion, I set ##N=1##, such that:

\begin{equation}

\begin{split}

\text{exp}\left[-i\Delta t \left(\frac{\vec{p}_{1}^2}{2 m}+ V(\vec{x}_{1})\right) + i \vec{p}_{1}(\vec{x}_{2}-\vec{x}_{1})\right]&=\text{exp}\left[-i\Delta t \left(\frac{\vec{p}_{1}^2}{2 m}+ V(\vec{x}_{1})\right) + i \vec{p}_{1}\Delta t \frac{(\vec{x}_{2}-\vec{x}_{1})}{\Delta t}\right]

\end{split}

\end{equation}Given ##\vec{v}=\frac{(\vec{x}_{2}-\vec{x}_{1})}{\Delta t}##:

\begin{equation}

\begin{split}

\text{exp}\left[-i\Delta t \left(\frac{\vec{p}_{1}^2}{2 m}+ V(\vec{x}_{1})\right) + i \vec{p}_{1}(\vec{x}_{2}-\vec{x}_{1})\right]&=\text{exp}\left[-i\Delta t \left(\frac{\vec{p}_{1}^2}{2 m}+ V(\vec{x}_{1})\right) + i \Delta t \vec{p}_{1} \vec{v}\right]

\\

&=\text{exp}\left[i\Delta t \left(\vec{p}_{1} \vec{v}-\frac{\vec{p}_{1}^2}{2 m}- V(\vec{x}_{1})\right) \right]

\\

&=\text{exp}\left[i\Delta t \left(\vec{p}_{1} \vec{v}\frac{m}{m}-\frac{\vec{p}_{1}^2}{2 m}- V(\vec{x}_{1})\right) \right]

\\

&=\text{exp}\left[i\Delta t \left(\frac{\vec{p}_{1}^2}{m}-\frac{\vec{p}_{1}^2}{2 m}- V(\vec{x}_{1})\right) \right]

\\

&=\text{exp}\left[i\Delta t \left(\frac{\vec{p}_{1}^2}{2 m}- V(\vec{x}_{1})\right) \right]

\\

&=\text{exp}\left[i\Delta t \left(\mathcal{L}\right) \right]

\end{split}

\end{equation}Which seems essentially the same as my derivation above.
 
Yes, it's essentially integrating out the momentum in the Hamiltonian version of the path integral (which must always be the starting point). Then, indeed, if the Hamiltonian is of this specific form, you get the Lagrangian version with the classical Lagrangian. If you have interactions involving the momenta (or velocities in the Lagrangian), you get something different when integrating out the momentum.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K