Path integral formulation of wave-optics

gptejms
Messages
386
Reaction score
2
A few years back,I stumbled upon a nice idea which I am reporting below:-

Just as classical mechanics is the h \rightarrow 0 limit of quantum mechanics(rather action >> \hbar,from path integral formulation),so should it be possible to argue from a path integral approach, that ray optics is the \lambda\rightarrow 0 limit of wave optics.What would such a path integral be?Here we go:-

The optical action may be written as
<br /> S=\int \frac{ds}{v(x,y,z)}=\int dt,
where the symbols are self-explanatory.So the prob. amplitude for light/sound(or photon/..) to go from point A to point B may be written as
<br /> \begin{equation}<br /> P=\sum_{all paths}\exp{\iota S/T_0},<br /> \end{equation}<br />
where T_0 is the time period.

As long as S=\int dt is not very large compared to T_0,all conceivable ray paths between any two fixed points are possible,so that there is an uncertainty in the ray path taken by light/sound in going from one point to the other.

Specially interesting is the case of a photon.For a photon
<br /> \begin{equation}<br /> \frac{1}{T_0}=\nu=\frac{E}{h}.<br /> \end{equation}<br />
Hence for a photon,prob. amplitude to go from one point to the other is given as
<br /> \begin{equation}<br /> P=\sum_{all paths}\exp{\iota ES/h},<br /> \end{equation}<br />
i.e.
<br /> \begin{equation}<br /> P=\sum_{all paths}\exp{\frac{\iota E\int dt}{h}}<br /> \end{equation}<br />

P.S. I am not able to see the latex graphics that I've generated in my browser--hope others are able to view it!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
i think it should be correct..but the action would come from the Eikonal equation:

(\nabla{S})^{2}=n^{2} where n is the refraction index as a function of x,y,z,t...then the path integral for optics would be:

\int{D[r,t]e^{iS(r,t)/\hbar}
 
The beauty about the form that I suggest is that for a photon using E=h\nu,we arrive naturally at the particle action(starting with the optical lagrangian/action).
My quick impression is that your S(phase I believe) is nothing but my S(modulo T_0)/T_0*2\pi---don't know where you get the \hbar from.
 
Last edited:
Eikonal equation should follow easily from my optical action S .\delta S=0 i.e. Fermat's principle should easily lead to the eikonal equation.
The nice thing would be to show that the wave equation follows from this sum over paths approach.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...
Back
Top