Path Integral Derivation Question

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving a path integral formulation for calculating the length of a curve over a specified interval, focusing on the mathematical approach rather than quantum mechanical applications. Participants explore the use of Riemann sums and integrals in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes their attempt to derive the path integral for the curve defined by f(x) = x^2 over the interval from x1 = 3 to x2 = 4, using small intervals to approximate the distance.
  • Another participant provides a standard approach for deriving the formula for arc length using infinitesimal reasoning, suggesting a transformation of the sum into a Riemann sum that approximates an integral.
  • Further clarification is offered on how the derivative f'(x) relates to the approximation of the sum, with some participants expressing uncertainty about the reasoning behind this step.
  • Several participants discuss the expression for the differential length dl and its relation to the integral of the curve length.
  • One participant raises a concern about potential issues with the integral leading to zero or imaginary path lengths when specific functions, such as y = x, are considered.
  • Another participant corrects a misunderstanding regarding the sign in the expression under the square root, affirming that it should be a "+" and not a "-".

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and agreement on the derivation process, with some clarifications and corrections made. However, there remains uncertainty regarding specific cases that may lead to problematic results, indicating that the discussion is not fully resolved.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the functions involved and the conditions under which the derived formulas hold true. The potential for encountering zero or imaginary path lengths is noted but not fully explored.

gordonj005
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
Hello, this will be my first post on the physics forum, so i wanted to make it decent :P

I've been trying recently to derive for myself a path integral formulation (not quantum mechanical or anything feynman like but for finding the length of a curve on a given interval). Heres my attempt at deriving it for a simple curve, but its a very time consuming tedius process to actually calculate. I know real path integrals involve Reinman sums, but after trying to learn them on my own, I decided to give it a shot on my own, here goes:

f(x) = x^2, from x1 = 3 to x2 = 4 using a small interval dx = 0.01

distance between two points on a function is defined as:
d = √(x2 - x1)^2 + (f(x2) - f(x1))^2

so breaking the curve down into infentesibly small portions, (or in this case our small interval dx), and adding the distances together, we should get a reasonably good approximation for the distance on the curve... right?

so in this case, between x1 = 3 and x2 = 4, we have several peices of the curve, ex, the distance between 3 - 3.01, 3.01 - 3.02, 3.02 - 3.03...3.99 - 4.0. I've worked it out so that the number of these peices is defined by (x2 - x1)*(1/dx). so in this case we have:

1*100 , so 100 individual peices we have to sum up. now this is where I've run into some problems. I've defined the sum as:

Ʃ(i = 1 to 100) = √((3 + i*dx) - (3 + (i-1)*dx))^2 + (f(3 + i*dx) - f(3 + (i-1)*dx))^2

which gives a reasonable approximation. now my problem is, i want to evaluate this sum as dx tends to zero, so we would have an exact answer. so we could write this as:

lim(dx -> 0) Ʃ(i = 1 to ∞) = √((3 + i*dx) - (3 + (i-1)*dx))^2 + (f(3 + i*dx) - f(3 + (i-1)*dx))^2

but i am stuck here, i feel like i should take an integral, but i don't know how and that probably isn't correct (or even doable). which leads me to my question, what now?

thank you very much

EDIT: using 0.01 i got ~6.94, and continuing to decrease it it seems to converge at ~7.074
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know much about path integrals, but for deriving the formula for arclength by "infinitesimal reasoning" the procedure in calculus is:

\sum_n \sqrt{ dx^2 + (f(x+(n+1) dx) - f(x+ n dx))^2}

which is how you began. Then divide inside the radical by dx^2 and multiply on the outside by dx

= \sum_n \sqrt{ 1 + (\frac {f(x+(n+1)*dx) - f(x+ n dx)}{dx})^2} dx

Argue that this approximates

\sum_n \sqrt{ 1 + f'(x+n dx) } dx

Argue that this is a Riemann sum to approximate the integral

\int \sqrt{1 + f'(x)} dx
 
Stephen Tashi said:
Argue that this approximates

1) \sum_n \sqrt{ 1 + f'(x+n dx) } dx

Argue that this is a Riemann sum to approximate the integral

2) \int \sqrt{1 + f'(x)} dx

to get expression 1) you're noticing that \frac{f(x + (n+1)dx) - f(x + ndx)}{dx} is just f'(x + ndx), i feel like that makes sense but I'm not sure why? both these steps make sense to me but I can't seem to reason them out. At any rate I'm going to reveiw integrals maybe that will help clear this up. Thanks again for your time
 
dl=\sqrt{dx^2+dy^2}=dx \sqrt{1+\left(\frac{dy}{dx}\right)^2}
l=\int dl=\int \sqrt{dx^2+dy^2}=\int dx \sqrt{1+\left(\frac{dy}{dx}\right)^2}
 
lurflurf said:
dl=\sqrt{dx^2+dy^2}=dx \sqrt{1+\left(\frac{dy}{dx}\right)^2}
l=\int dl=\int \sqrt{dx^2+dy^2}=\int dx \sqrt{1+\left(\frac{dy}{dx}\right)^2}

AH! Perfect, that makes perfect sense. Thank you very much lurflurf.
 
After thinking about it, there's a problem.

take :
y = x

this means:
\frac{dy}{dx} = 1

which means you'll be taking the integral of zero, so you will have no path lenth. also, when taking the definite integral between two points, you can run into imaginary path lengths, there's something wrong
 
gordonj005 said:
After thinking about it, there's a problem.

take :
y = x

this means:
\frac{dy}{dx} = 1

which means you'll be taking the integral of zero, so you will have no path lenth. also, when taking the definite integral between two points, you can run into imaginary path lengths, there's something wrong

I'm not sure what you were just looking at that got you confused, but the formula lurflurf posted has 1 + (y')^2 in the square root, not 1 - (y')^2. There's no problem.
 
Of course, nevermind. Thanks again everyone.
 
No, that is a "+" inside the square root not a "-".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K