Ground state wave function from Euclidean path integral

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the ground state wave function using the Euclidean path integral approach in quantum mechanics. Participants explore the implications of Wick rotation and the limits involved in path integrals, particularly focusing on the relationship between the ground state wave functions and their complex conjugates.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a derivation involving the path integral and Wick rotation, leading to expressions for the ground state wave function and its complex conjugate.
  • Another participant introduces a Green function approach to analyze the limits and asymptotic behavior of the wave functions, questioning how to separate the product of the wave functions.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of the Wick rotation on the limits of the path integrals, noting that different starting points yield different limits.
  • There is a suggestion that the definitions of the Green function may be inconsistent, with a call for clarification on the signs used in the expressions.
  • One participant emphasizes that the path integral should represent the probability amplitude for transitions between states, leading to confusion about the directionality of the time evolution.
  • Another participant points out potential confusion regarding the time-evolution pictures and the definitions of the position eigenstates in different representations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct application of Wick rotation and the interpretation of the path integral. There is no consensus on the proper limits or the relationship between the ground state wave functions and their complex conjugates, indicating that multiple competing views remain.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the derivations involve assumptions about the symmetry of the process and the definitions of the Green function, which may not be universally agreed upon. The discussion also highlights the dependence on the choice of initial and final states in the path integral formulation.

ShayanJ
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
2,802
Reaction score
605
From the path integral approach, we know that ## \displaystyle \langle x,t|x_i,0\rangle \propto \int_{\xi(0)=x_i}^{\xi(t_f)=x} D\xi(t) \ e^{iS[\xi]}##. Now, using ## |x,t\rangle=e^{-iHt}|x,0\rangle ##, ## |y\rangle\equiv |y,0\rangle ## and ## \sum_b |\phi_b\rangle\langle \phi_b|=1 ## where ## \{ \phi_b \} ## are the energy eigenstates we have:

## \langle x,t|x_i\rangle =\langle x| e^{iHt}|x_i\rangle=\sum_b \langle x|e^{iHt}|\phi_b\rangle \langle \phi_b|x_i\rangle=\sum_b \langle x|\phi_b\rangle e^{iE_bt}\langle \phi_b|x_i\rangle=\sum_b \phi_b(x) \phi_b^*(x_i) e^{iE_bt} ##

Now by doing a Wick rotation, ## t=it_E ## and taking the limit ## t_E\to \infty ##, we'll have:

##\displaystyle \langle x,i\infty|x_i\rangle \propto \phi_0(x) \Rightarrow \phi_0(x) \propto \int_{\xi(0)=x_i}^{\xi(t_E=\infty)=x} D\xi(t) \ e^{-S[\xi]} ##

Using a similar argument we can find:

##\displaystyle \phi_0^*(x) \propto \int_{\xi(t_E=-\infty)=x}^{\xi(0)=x_i} D\xi(t) \ e^{-S[\xi]} ##

The problem is, everywhere that I see this, the path integral for ## \phi_0(x) ## is from ## -\infty ## to 0 and the path integral for ## \phi_0^*(x) ## is from 0 to ## \infty ##, the opposite of what I got. What am I doing wrong?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not super-competent at path integrals, but it seems to me that starting with your expression:

\langle x,t|x_i\rangle = \sum_b \phi_b(x)^* \phi_b(x_i) e^{i E_b t}

Then letting t = i \beta, we have:
G(x, x_i, \beta) \equiv \sum_b \phi_b(x)^* \phi_b(x_i) e^{- E_b \beta}

(I'm introducing the Green function G just because it's easier to write than the sum or the path integral)

If \beta \gg 1, then G(x,x_i,\beta) \approx \phi_0^*(x) \phi_0(x_i) e^{-E_0 \beta}

Given this asymptotic expression, we can get E_0 as a limit:

E_0 = lim_{\beta \rightarrow \infty} \frac{-log(G(x,x_i,\beta))}{\beta}

In terms of E_0, we can get another limit:

\phi_0^*(x) \phi_0(x_i) = lim_{\beta \rightarrow \infty} G(x,x_i,\beta) e^{+\beta E_0}

So taking the limit as \beta \rightarrow \infty or t \rightarrow +i \infty gives us information about the product \phi_0^*(x) \phi_0(x_i). I don't see how it gives us either \phi_0^*(x) or \phi_0(x_i) separately.
 
stevendaryl said:
In terms of E_0, we can get another limit:

\phi_0^*(x) \phi_0(x_i) = lim_{\beta \rightarrow \infty} G(x,x_i,\beta) e^{+\beta E_0}

So taking the limit as \beta \rightarrow \infty or t \rightarrow +i \infty gives us information about the product \phi_0^*(x) \phi_0(x_i). I don't see how it gives us either \phi_0^*(x) or \phi_0(x_i) separately.

You could get \phi_0(x) up to a phase:

|\phi_0(x)|^2 = lim_{\beta \rightarrow \infty} G(x,x,\beta) e^{+\beta E_0}

Then you take the square-root to get \phi_0(x) up to an unknown phase.
 
## \phi_0(x_i) ## and ## \phi_0^*(x_i) ## are just the value of some function at some point and so both are constant. And since I the formulas I wrote are proportionalities instead of equalities, I don't think they make any difference.
 
ShayanJ said:
## \phi_0(x_i) ## and ## \phi_0^*(x_i) ## are just the value of some function at some point and so both are constant. And since I the formulas I wrote are proportionalities instead of equalities, I don't think they make any difference.

Well, in that case, it seems to me that you have both:

\phi_0^*(x) \propto lim_{\beta \rightarrow +\infty} G(x,x_i,\beta) e^{+\beta E_0} (considering x_i a constant)

and

\phi_0(x_i) \propto lim_{\beta \rightarrow +\infty} G(x,x_i,\beta) e^{+\beta E_0} (considering x a constant)

I don't understand why the limits would be different.
 
stevendaryl said:
I don't understand why the limits would be different.
The Wick rotation changes ## \sum_b \phi_b(x)\phi_b^*(x_i) e^{iE_bt} ## to ## \sum_b \phi_b(x)\phi_b^*(x_i) e^{-E_bt_E} ##. So the phase is now a decaying exponential and its limit at ## \infty ## is zero.

But if you do the calculation starting with ## \langle x_i|x,t\rangle ##, you'll have:
## \langle x_i|x,t\rangle=\langle x_i|e^{-iHt}|x\rangle=\sum_b \langle x_i|e^{-iHt}|\phi_b\rangle \langle \phi_b|x\rangle=\sum_b \phi_b(x_i) \phi_b^*(x) e^{-iE_bt} ##.

The Wick rotation changes ## \sum_b \phi_b(x_i) \phi_b^*(x) e^{-iE_bt} ## to ## \sum_b \phi_b(x_i) \phi_b^*(x) e^{E_bt_E} ##. Now the exponential function is not decaying and the limit we have to take is ## t_E\to -\infty ##.

P.S.
Your approach makes sense but I'm doing this to make sense of the calculations of a paper and to match those calculations, I need one of the boundaries to be at ## t_E=-\infty ##. Although I have some doubts about what you do because our starting point is not symmetric w.r.t. ## x \leftrightarrow x_i ## but at the end you're assuming that the whole process has that symmetry.
 
Just a point about definitions: Normally, the definition of the Green function, or propagator, is:

\langle x|e^{-i H t}|x_i \rangle

not

\langle x|e^{+i H t}|x_i \rangle

Are you sure about the plus sign?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier and vanhees71
Actually I didn't start from any definition. The standard derivation of the path integral starts from ## \langle x,t|x_i \rangle ##. Using ## |x,t\rangle=e^{-iHt}|x\rangle \Rightarrow \langle x,t|=\langle x|e^{iHt} ##, we can write it as ## \langle x|e^{iHt}|x_i\rangle ##. Then by breaking down the intervals, they derive the result ##\displaystyle \langle x,t|x_i \rangle\propto \int_{\xi(0)=x_i}^{\xi(t)=x} D\xi(t) \ e^{iS[\xi]} ##. This formula will give us ## \phi_0(x) ## as I explained in my previous posts.
But because I also needed to derive the same result for ## \phi_0^*(x) ##, I thought maybe I can do the same calculations, this time starting from ## \langle x_i|x,t\rangle ##. But this time we have ## |x,t\rangle=e^{-iHt}|x\rangle ## and so ## \langle x_i|x,t\rangle=\langle x_i|e^{-iHt}|x\rangle ##.
 
ShayanJ said:
Actually I didn't start from any definition. The standard derivation of the path integral starts from ## \langle x,t|x_i \rangle ##. Using ## |x,t\rangle=e^{-iHt}|x\rangle \Rightarrow \langle x,t|=\langle x|e^{iHt} ##, we can write it as ## \langle x|e^{iHt}|x_i\rangle ##. Then by breaking down the intervals, they derive the result ##\displaystyle \langle x,t|x_i \rangle\propto \int_{\xi(0)=x_i}^{\xi(t)=x} D\xi(t) \ e^{iS[\xi]} ##.

Okay, but the usual interpretation of the path integral is that it gives the probability amplitude of going from some initial point x_i at time t_0 to some final point x_f at time t_f, which would be \langle x_f| e^{-i H (t_f - t_i)} |x_i\rangle. I thought that's what you were doing, with x_f \Rightarrow x and t_i \Rightarrow 0 and t_f \Rightarrow t. That would give: \langle x| e^{-i H t} |x_i\rangle. With the + sign, it's the complex conjugate of the amplitude to go from x at time 0 to x_i at time t. So it seems backwards to me.

So letting the usual Green function be G(x,x_i, t) = \langle x | e^{-iHt} | x_i \rangle, the expression you wrote is
G(x, x_i, -t) or G(x_i, x, t)^*.

I guess it doesn't matter how they relate to the usual Green function, but in any case, you can do either of these
  • Start with \langle x|e^{-iHt}|x_i\rangle, and take the limit t \rightarrow -i \infty
  • Start with \langle x|e^{+iHt}|x_i\rangle, and take the limit t \rightarrow +i\infty
Those both give exactly the same thing, which is \phi_0(x) \phi_0^*(x_i)

Or you can switch x and x_i (which is the same as taking the complex conjugate and flipping the time):
  • Start with \langle x_i|e^{-iHt}|x\rangle, and take the limit t \rightarrow -i \infty
  • Start with \langle x_i|e^{+iHt}|x\rangle, and take the limit t \rightarrow +i\infty
Those give you the complex conjugate: \phi_0^*(x) \phi_0(x_i)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ShayanJ
  • #10
There seems to be some confusion concerning the time-evolution pictures here. I suppose by ##|x,t \rangle## you mean the position eigenvector in the Heisenberg picture of time evolution. It is defined such that the position operator obeys the equation of motion (setting ##\hbar=1##)
$$[\hat{x},\hat{H}]=\mathrm{i} \dot{\hat{x}}.$$
This implies that
$$\hat{x}(t)=\exp(\mathrm{i} \hat{H} t) \hat{x}_0 \exp(-\mathrm{i} \hat{H}t),$$
because then
$$\dot{\hat{x}}=-\mathrm{i} \exp(\mathrm{i} \hat{H} t) [\hat{x}_0,\hat{H}] \exp(-\mathrm{i} \hat{H}t) = -\mathrm{i} [\hat{x},\hat{H}].$$
The eigenvector is defined such that for all ##t##
$$\hat{x}(t)|x,t \rangle = x|x,t \rangle \qquad (*)$$
with ##x \in \mathbb{R}## fixed. Now we have
$$\hat{x}(t) |x,t \rangle=\exp(\mathrm{i} \hat{H} t) \hat{x}_0 \exp(-\mathrm{i} \hat{H}t)|x,t \rangle,$$
So if we define (!)
$$\exp(-\mathrm{i} \hat{H} t) |x,t \rangle=|x,0 \rangle \; \Rightarrow \; |x,t \rangle=\exp(+\mathrm{i} \hat{H} t) |x_0,t \rangle,$$
This fulfills (*), and that's how one defines (up to a phase) the Heisenberg position eigenvectors.

Now we can write the wave function (which is independent of the picture of time evolution) as
$$\psi(t,x)=\langle x,t|\psi \rangle=\int_{\mathbb{R}} \mathrm{d} x' \langle x,t|x',0 \rangle \langle x',0|\psi \rangle=\int_{\mathbb{R}} G(t,x,x') \psi_0(x'),$$
i.e., the Green's function is
$$G(t,x,x')=\langle x,t|x',0 \rangle=\langle x,0|\exp(-\mathrm{i} \hat{H} t|x',0 \rangle$$
as written by @stevendaryl in posting #7.

Obviously it fulfills
$$\mathrm{i} \partial_t G(t,x,x') = \langle x,t|\hat{H}|x',0 \rangle, \qquad G(0^+,x,x')=\delta(x-x'),$$
i.e., the Green's function fullfills the Schrödinger Equation with the appropriate boundary condition.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ShayanJ
  • #11
ShayanJ said:
From the path integral approach, we know that ## \displaystyle \langle x,t|x_i,0\rangle \propto \int_{\xi(0)=x_i}^{\xi(t_f)=x} D\xi(t) \ e^{iS[\xi]}##. Now, using ## |x,t\rangle=e^{-iHt}|x,0\rangle ##, ## |y\rangle\equiv |y,0\rangle ## and ## \sum_b |\phi_b\rangle\langle \phi_b|=1 ## where ## \{ \phi_b \} ## are the energy eigenstates we have:

## \langle x,t|x_i\rangle =\langle x| e^{iHt}|x_i\rangle=\sum_b \langle x|e^{iHt}|\phi_b\rangle \langle \phi_b|x_i\rangle=\sum_b \langle x|\phi_b\rangle e^{iE_bt}\langle \phi_b|x_i\rangle=\sum_b \phi_b(x) \phi_b^*(x_i) e^{iE_bt} ##

Now by doing a Wick rotation, ## t=it_E ## and taking the limit ## t_E\to \infty ##, we'll have:

##\displaystyle \langle x,i\infty|x_i\rangle \propto \phi_0(x) \Rightarrow \phi_0(x) \propto \int_{\xi(0)=x_i}^{\xi(t_E=\infty)=x} D\xi(t) \ e^{-S[\xi]} ##

Using a similar argument we can find:

##\displaystyle \phi_0^*(x) \propto \int_{\xi(t_E=-\infty)=x}^{\xi(0)=x_i} D\xi(t) \ e^{-S[\xi]} ##

The problem is, everywhere that I see this, the path integral for ## \phi_0(x) ## is from ## -\infty ## to 0 and the path integral for ## \phi_0^*(x) ## is from 0 to ## \infty ##, the opposite of what I got. What am I doing wrong?

Thanks

Be careful here. If the state |\psi ;t \rangle evolves “forward” in time, i.e., |\psi ;t \rangle = e^{-iHt}|\psi ; 0\rangle , the position eigen-ket |x,t\rangle must evolve “backward” in time, i.e., |x,t\rangle = e^{iHt} |x,0\rangle = e^{-iH(-t)}|x,0\rangle . This is because the wave-function \psi(x,t) is defined by picture-independent inner product: <br /> \begin{align*}<br /> \psi(x,t) &amp;= \langle x , 0 |\psi ; t \rangle \\<br /> &amp;= \langle x , 0 |\left( e^{-iHt} |\psi ;0 \rangle \right) \\<br /> &amp;= \left( \langle x , 0 | e^{-iHt} \right) |\psi ; 0 \rangle \\<br /> &amp;= \langle x , t |\psi ; 0 \rangle ,<br /> \end{align*}<br />
where \langle x , 0 |\psi ; t \rangle is the inner product of the time-fixed position bra \langle x | \equiv \langle x , 0 | with the “forward”-evolving state |\psi ; t \rangle, and \langle x , t |\psi ; 0 \rangle is the inner product of the Heisenberg position bra \langle x , t |, which evolves “backward” in time, with the time-fixed Heisenberg state |\psi ; 0\rangle.
Now, at any given time t’, the Heisenberg set \{ |x , t’\rangle \} is complete. So, for t &gt; t’ &gt; 0, we can write
<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> \psi(x,t) &amp;= \int dx’ \langle x , t |x’ , t’ \rangle \langle x’ , t’ | \psi ; 0 \rangle \\<br /> &amp;= \int dx’ \ K(x , t ; x’ , t’) \ \psi(x’,t’) .<br /> \end{align*}<br />
Now, by inserting complete energy eigenstates \{ |\varphi_{a}\rangle \} in the propagator, we get
<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> K( x , t ; x’ , t’) &amp;= \langle x , t |x’ , t’ \rangle \\<br /> &amp;= \sum_{a} \langle x , 0| e^{-iHt}|\varphi_{a}\rangle \langle \varphi_{a}|e^{iHt’}|x’, 0\rangle \\<br /> &amp;= \sum_{a} e^{-iE_{a}(t-t’)} \langle x |\varphi_{a}\rangle \langle \varphi_{a}|x’\rangle .<br /> \end{align*}<br />
Thus K(x , t ; x’ , 0) = \sum_{a} e^{-iE_{a}t} \ \varphi_{a}(x) \varphi^{*}_{a}(x’) . Now, let t \to \infty (or if you like t \to –i\infty). Assuming there is a gap between E_{0} and E_{1}, the main contribution to the sum will come from the ground state \varphi_{0}(x). As t gets large, all terms above the ground state (n &gt; 0) will oscillate very fast and will not contribute. Also, in the limit t \to –i\infty, any term with n&gt;0 will die out exponentially relative to the vacuum state. So, \lim_{t \to \infty} K(x , t ; x , 0) = \varphi_{0}(x) \varphi^{*}(x) , and, therefore, \lim_{t \to \infty} K(x,t ; 0,0) \sim \varphi_{0}(x) = \langle x | 0 \rangle .
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and ShayanJ
  • #12
It should be stressed again that of course you have to stay in one picture of time evolution. In the following I conveniently assume that the Schrödinger and Heisenberg picture coincide at ##t=0##, which is arbitrary and convenient. For the Schrödinger picture you have (for a time-independent Hamiltonian)
$$|\psi,t \rangle_S=\exp(-\mathrm{i} \hat{H} t) |\psi,0 \rangle, \quad |\vec{x},t \rangle_S=|\vec{x},0 \rangle,$$
and for the Heisenberg picture
$$|\psi,t \rangle_H=|\psi,0 \rangle, \quad |\vec{x},t \rangle=\exp(+\mathrm{i} \hat{H}t) |\vec{x},0 \rangle.$$
Of course, the wave function is picture independent, because
$$\psi(t,\vec{x})=_S\langle \vec{x},t|\psi \rangle_S = \langle \vec{x},0|\exp(-\mathrm{i} \hat{H} t)| \psi,0 \rangle = \langle \exp(+\mathrm{i} \hat{H} t) \vec{x},0|\psi,0 \rangle = _H \langle \vec{x},t |\psi,t \rangle_H.$$
 
  • #13
How should do these calculations if the Hamiltonian is time dependent?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
6K