Where Can I Find Rigorous Developments of the Path Integral Formulation?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the search for rigorous developments of the path integral formulation in quantum field theory (QFT). The original poster expresses interest in the formalities and justifications of the path integral approach, particularly the transition from discrete to continuous formulations. Recommendations for comprehensive resources include chapters from J. Sakurai's "Modern Quantum Mechanics," Greiner & Reinhardt's "Field Quantization," and B. Hatfield's "Quantum Field Theory Of Point Particles And Strings." The conversation highlights the need for detailed explanations that are often lacking in standard QFT texts. Overall, the quest for a rigorous understanding of path integrals remains a significant topic in the field.
ghotra
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Hi, I'm wondering if someone can point me to "rigorous" developments of the path integral formulation. I've mostly seen arguments based on chopping up a line into a discrete set of points and then taking the limit as the number of points goes to infinity and integrating over all possible values of the infinite number of points.

I am convinced by these arguments, but I am interested in some of the formalities...particularly some of the intermediate steps. It seems like quite a big jump to the final result, and and I am interested in some of the justifications. Surely this must have been done rigorously at some point...though it doesn't seem that many QFT books describe the details (with good reason).

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I thought the treatment of the path integral in "An Introduction To Quantum Field Theory"-Schroeder & Peskin was great and pretty comprehensive. They give the one dimensional classical derivation and then extend that to general quantum mechanical systems with higher degrees of freedom. The explanations you've had, did they involve discussions of classical paths, least action etc.?
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9302097"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The development by Dirac and Feynman built on work already performed in mathematics.
 
ghotra said:
Hi, I'm wondering if someone can point me to "rigorous" developments of the path integral formulation. I've mostly seen arguments based on chopping up a line into a discrete set of points and then taking the limit as the number of points goes to infinity and integrating over all possible values of the infinite number of points.
I am convinced by these arguments, but I am interested in some of the formalities...particularly some of the intermediate steps. It seems like quite a big jump to the final result, and and I am interested in some of the justifications. Surely this must have been done rigorously at some point...though it doesn't seem that many QFT books describe the details (with good reason).
Thanks.
Start by reading Ch2 of J. Sakurai's book; Modern Quantum Mechanics.(my rating;*****)
Next read Ch11 & Ch12 of the book; Field Quantization, by Greiner & Reinhardt.(rating****)
Then Ch12,Ch13 & Ch14 of B. Hatfield's book; Quantum Field Theory Of Point Particles And Strings.(rating******)
After reading the above, Now go and read L.S.Schulman's book;
Techniques and Applications of Path Integration

(rating***************************)

regards

sam
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K