Equivalence between path integral formulation and matrix formulation

Click For Summary
The equivalence between the path integral formulation and matrix formulation in quantum mechanics is a crucial concept, asserting that both approaches yield the same physical predictions through different mathematical expressions. The path integral formulation, introduced by Feynman, sums over all possible paths a particle can take, while the matrix formulation, developed by Heisenberg, uses vectors and matrices to describe quantum states and their evolution. Although a direct proof of their equivalence without referencing the Schrödinger equation is elusive, both formulations share a foundation in the principle of superposition and time evolution. Key texts, such as Feynman and Hibbs' "Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals," explore this equivalence in detail. Understanding these formulations enhances comprehension of quantum mechanics' fundamental principles.
wenty
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Does anyone know where to find the "direct" (not by prove they are both equal to Schrodinger formualtion )proof?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There's no direct proof.Both matrix mechanics and Schrödinger's wave mechanics are particular representations of Dirac's abstract formulation.So the equivalence is between formulations:path integral (R.P.Feynman) and traditional (vectors and operators,P.A.M.Dirac).

There's a famous book which deals with this issue:

Feynman and Hibbs,"Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals",McGraw & Hill,1965.

The essential of that book is found as a chapter/subchapter in many QM texts,outta which i'd like to mention Sakurai and Cohen-Tannoudji.

Daniel.
 


The equivalence between the path integral formulation and the matrix formulation is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics. It states that both formulations lead to the same physical predictions and are essentially two different ways of expressing the same underlying mathematical structure.

The path integral formulation, first introduced by Richard Feynman, is based on the idea of summing over all possible paths that a particle can take to go from one point to another. This is represented by an integral over all possible paths in space and time. On the other hand, the matrix formulation, developed by Werner Heisenberg, represents quantum states as vectors in a complex vector space and operators as matrices. The time evolution of a quantum state is then given by matrix multiplication.

To show the equivalence between these two formulations, one can directly derive the Schrodinger equation from both the path integral and matrix formulations. However, to find a "direct" proof that does not involve showing their equivalence to the Schrodinger equation, one can look at the underlying mathematical structure of both formulations.

Both the path integral and matrix formulations are based on the principle of superposition, which states that the total wavefunction of a system is the sum of all individual wavefunctions. In the path integral formulation, this is represented by summing over all possible paths, while in the matrix formulation, it is represented by matrix multiplication.

Furthermore, both formulations also involve the concept of time evolution, which is represented by the time evolution operator in the matrix formulation and the action integral in the path integral formulation. These operators are related to each other through the Hamiltonian of the system.

Therefore, one can see that the path integral and matrix formulations are essentially two different ways of representing the same underlying mathematical structure. This provides a "direct" proof of their equivalence without having to show their relationship to the Schrodinger equation.

In conclusion, the equivalence between the path integral and matrix formulations is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics, and their underlying mathematical structures are closely related. While a direct proof may not be readily available, understanding the fundamental principles and concepts behind both formulations can provide a deeper insight into their equivalence.
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K