Forced Harmonic Oscillator with Path Integral

Phileas.Fogg
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Hello,
how do I compute the transition amplitude of the forced harmonic oscillator with the method of path integration?

Regards,
Mr. Fogg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you mean the vacuum to vacuum transition amplitude? You take the Fourier transformation of the path, plug the path into the functional, complete the square to separate out a path-independent term and a path-dependent term, shift the path so that the path-dependent term is no longer a function of the source, then set the whole expression equal to 1 when the source is zero to correctly normalize it, and this will show you that the transition amplitude is the path-independent term.
 
Phileas.Fogg said:
Hello,
how do I compute the transition amplitude of the forced harmonic oscillator with the method of path integration?

Regards,
Mr. Fogg

Make the ansatz: x=\bar{x}+y, where \bar{x} is the classical solution. Then we can write the "variation" y as a Fourier expansion in time. Thus the kernel K[b,a] is

K[b,a]=\e^{\frac{i}{\hbar}S_{cl}[b,a]}F[T]

and normalization constant in F(T) could be found by the limit w->0 (free particle case). The action of the classical trajectory could be obtained using the Green function. We have the system: x''+w^2x=f(t)/m and BC x(ta)=Xa and x(tb)=Xb. The Lagrangian could then be obtained if we know x(t) which is given as:

\bar{x}(t)=\int_{ta}^{tb}G(t,\chi)f(t)/m\cdot d\chi

Hope this helps you a bit...
Per
 
HI!
Thanks for your help.

The Lagrangian is
L = \frac{1}{2} m \dot{x}^2 - \frac{1}{2} m \omega^2 x^2 + J(t) x

I started with:

x = x_{cl} + y

and showed that the transition amplitude can be written as

U(x_a,x_b,t_b) = \exp(-\frac{i}{\hbar}S(x_{cl})) + \int_{y(0)=0}^{y(t_{b})=0} [dy]\exp(-\frac{i}{\hbar} \int_0^{t_{b}} dt \frac{1}{2}m (\dot{y}^2 - \omega^2 y^2)

Now I wan't to show with Path Integration that the transition amplitude is then

U(x_a, x_b, t_b) = \lim\limits_{N \rightarrow \infty}\frac{m}{2 \pi i \hbar \epsilon Q_{N-1}} e^{\frac{i}{\hbar} S(x_{cl})} \quad \text{(1.1)}

with \epsilon = \frac{t_b}{N} \quad Q_{N-1} = det(A)

A is a quadratic Matrix.

I don't know, how to get the Matrix-Expression (1.1) of the transition amplitude.

Regards,
Mr.Fogg
 
Last edited:
Maybe this link will help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_integral#n-dimensional_and_functional_generalization

The det(A) doesn't really matter.

As I think already has been mentioned, for your particular problem (no more than quadratic in q), you can also find the classical solution to your Lagrangian, and plug that solution into your Lagrangian. The classical solution should be:

q(t)=\int \frac{d^4n}{(2\pi)^4} \frac{f(n)}{m(\omega^2-n^2)}e^{-int}

where f(n) is the Fourier-Transform of f(t).
 
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!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...

Similar threads

Back
Top