I Path Integrals in Quantum Theory

rocdoc
Gold Member
Messages
43
Reaction score
3
I have found a general result for certain exponential integrals that may be of interest to those involved with using path integrals. I am not certain that I am applying it correctly but it appears to work, and I can reproduce results quoted in various textbooks , using it. This may however be coincidental.

The result is ,result 7.4.32 of Abramowitz and Stegun, see pg.303 of Reference 1. I quote
'$$\int e^{-(ax^2+2bx+c)}\:\mathrm{d}x=\frac{1} {2}\sqrt{\frac{\pi} {a} }e^{ \frac{b^2-ac}{a}} erf(\sqrt ax+\frac{b} {\sqrt a})+const. ~~~~~~~~ (a\neq0) $$'here erf(z) denotes the error function.

Naively I take the following as true
$$\int^\infty_{-\infty} e^{-(ax^2+2bx+c)}\:\mathrm{d}x=\sqrt{\frac{\pi} {a} }e^{ \frac{b^2-ac}{a}}~~~~~~~(1)$$I assume this is true for complex valued ##a,b~\text {and}~ c##

Please note Spiegel, Reference 2 pg.183 result 35.3 gives ##erf(\infty)=1## and Reference 1 pg. 297 says ##erf(-z)=-erf~~z##

Using equation(1) , I can reproduce equation 8.18 of Kaku, see Reference 3; equation 1.1 of Bailin and Love, see Reference 4 and equation 1.49 of Cheng and Li , see reference 5.

So , am I OK with using equation (1)? Is it valid?

References

1) Handbook of Mathematical Functions , Eds M.Abramowitz and I.A. Stegun , Dover Publications, Inc., New York , Ninth Printing , Nov. 1970.

2) M. R. Spiegel, Ph.D. , Mathematical Handbook , McGraw-Hill , Inc. , 1968.

3) M.Kaku , QuantumField Theory, A Modern Introduction , Oxford University Press, Inc. , 1993.

4) D. Bailin and A.Love , Introduction to Gauge Field Theory, IOP Publishing Ltd, 1986.

5) Ta-Pei Cheng and Ling-Fong Li , Gauge theory of elementary particle physics ,Oxford University Press , New York, 1988.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It certainly should be valid with the understanding that you are extending it to an improper path integral in the complex plane. Since there are no poles there are no issues with choices of path and the result holds for limits at \pm \infty + 0 i.
 
Result 7.1.16 of Abramowitz and Stegun, Reference 1 of post1 , looks relevant to working out when the definite integral of post1 can be used. It is, I quote '

$$7.1.16~~~~~~~~~erf~ z \rightarrow 1~(~z\rightarrow \infty~~in~~~~|arg~z|<\frac{\pi} {4})$$

'.
 
To the result 7.1.16 of Abramowitz and Stegun, Reference 1 of post1 ,one may add
$$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~erf~ z \rightarrow -1~(~z\rightarrow -\infty~~in~~~~|~\pi - arg~z|<\frac{\pi} {4})~~~~~~(2)$$
by use of symmetry, i.e.
$$erf(-z)=-erf~~z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(3)$$
So I guess EQ(1) should be applicable, if
$$~~~~~~|~ arg(~\sqrt ax+\frac{b}{\sqrt a}~)|<\frac{\pi} {4}~~x\rightarrow \infty~~~~~(4)$$
and
$$~~~~~~|~\pi - arg(~\sqrt ax+\frac{b}{\sqrt a}~)|<\frac{\pi} {4}~~x\rightarrow -\infty~~~~~(5)$$
I also guess that the above inequalities may be extended to less than or equal versions, by the use of a suitable limit definition of ##erf ~z## for the boundaries of the regions of the complex plane mentioned in inequalities (4) and (5).

So with both ##a## and ##b## purely imaginary and 'positive' ( i.e. equivalent to points on the positive y-axis, in the complex plane), I guess we are OK to use the expression in EQ(1) for the definite integral, and also for ##a## and ##b## purely imaginary with ##a## positive but ##b## negative. I have not checked out the ##a## negative cases.

It also looks that it is OK to use the formula of EQ(1) for ##a,b,c## all real, which may account for result 15.75 of reference 2, which I quote'
$$15.75~~\int^\infty_{-\infty} e^{-(ax^2+bx+c)}\:\mathrm{d}x=\sqrt{\frac{\pi} {a} }e^{ (b^2-4ac/4a)}~~~~~$$
Obviously the above is not a complete analysis of where EQ(1) may be applicable. I would be interested in a more complete analysis of when EQ(1) can be used.
 
Last edited:
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...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top