Problem with Path Integral Expressions in Peskin And Schroeder Section 9.1

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on clarifying the path integral expressions in Section 9.1 of Peskin and Schroeder, particularly the derivation of the propagator and the role of the factor C(ε). Participants express confusion over how this factor appears in the discretized form of the propagator and whether it relates to the indexing of momentum and coordinate integrals. Additionally, there is a question about the notation used in the integral expressions, specifically whether the product notation is necessary. Lastly, the transition from one equation to another involving the integration measure Dφ raises questions about the constant factors that may be absorbed in the definition of Dφ. The conversation emphasizes the nuances of path integrals and the importance of understanding these constants in quantum field theory.
maverick280857
Messages
1,774
Reaction score
5
Hi again everyone,

I have some doubts about the path integral expressions given in Section 9.1 of Peskin and Schroeder (pg 281 and 282).

For a Weyl ordered Hamiltonian H, the propagator has the form given by equation 9.11, which reads

U(q_{0},q_{N};T) = \left(\prod_{i,k}\int dq_{k}^{i}\int \frac{dp_{k}^{i}}{2\pi}\right)\exp{\left[i\sum_{k}\left(\sum_{i}p_{k}^{i}(q_{k+1}^{i}-q_{k}^{i})-\epsilon H\left(\frac{q_{k+1}+q_{k}}{2},p_{k}\right)\right)\right]}

Now, as the authors point out, for the case when H = \frac{p^2}{2m} + V(q)[/tex], we can do the momentum integral, which is (taking the potential term out)<br /> <br /> \int\frac{dp_{k}}{2\pi}\exp{\left(i\left[p_k(q_{k+1}-q_{k})-\epsilon\frac{p_{k}^2}{2m}\right]\right) = \frac{1}{C(\epsilon)}\exp{\left[\frac{im}{2\epsilon}(q_{k+1}-q_{k})^2\right]}<br /> <br /> where<br /> <br /> C(\epsilon) = \sqrt{\frac{2\pi\epsilon}{-im}}<br /> <br /> Now, I do not understand how the distribution of factors C(\epsilon) equation 9.13 (given below) comes up. To quote the authors:<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="" data-source="" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> Notice that we have one such factor for each time slice. Thus we recover expression (9.3), in discretized form, including the <i>proper</i> factors of C:<br /> <br /> &lt;br /&gt; U(q_{a},q_{b};T) = \left(\frac{1}{C(\epsilon)}\prod_{k}\int\frac{dq_{k}}{C(\epsilon)}\right)\exp\left[i\sum_{k}\left(\frac{m}{2}\frac{(q_{k+1}-q_{k})^2}{\epsilon}-\epsilon V\left(\frac{q_{k+1}+q_{k}}{2}\right)\right)\right]&lt;br /&gt; </div> </div> </blockquote><br /> So, my question is: how did we get this term:<br /> <br /> \left(\frac{1}{C(\epsilon)}\prod_{k}\int\frac{dq_{k}}{C(\epsilon)}\right)<br /> <br /> PS -- Is it because the momentum index goes from 0 to N-1 and the coordinate index goes from 1 to N-1? The momentum integral product produces N terms, so to write the coordinate integral with the same indexing as before (in the final expression), i.e. k = 1 to N-1, we factor a C(\epsilon) out?<br /> <br /> Also, in equation 9.12,<br /> <br /> U(q_{a},q_{b};T) = \left(\prod_{i}\int \mathcal{D}q(t)\mathcal{D}p(t)\right)\exp{\left[i\int_{0}^{T}dt\left(\sum_{i}p^{i}\dot{q}^{i}-H(q,p)\right)\right]}<br /> <br /> shouldn&#039;t we just write<br /> <br /> \left(\int \mathcal{D}q(t)\mathcal{D}p(t)\right)<br /> <br /> instead of<br /> <br /> \left(\prod_{i}\int \mathcal{D}q(t)\mathcal{D}p(t)\right)<br /> <br /> since the \mathcal{D} itself stands for \prod?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Another query I have concerns the derivation of equation 9.14, which is

\langle \phi_{b}({\bf{x}})|e^{-iHT}|\phi_{a}({\bf{x}})\rangle = \int \mathcal{D}\phi\exp\left[i\int_{0}^{T}d^{4}x \mathcal{L}\right]

from

\langle \phi_{b}({\bf{x}})|e^{-iHT}|\phi_{a}({\bf{x}})\rangle = \int\mathcal{D}\phi\int\mathcal{D}\pi \exp{\left[i\int_{0}^{T}d^{4}x\left(\pi\dot{\phi}-\frac{1}{2}\pi^2-\frac{1}{2}(\nabla\phi)^2-V(\phi)\right)\right]}

To quote the authors,

The integration measure \mathcal{D}\phi in (9.14) again involves an awkward constant, which we do not write explicitly.

Now, I am a bit confused about the meaning of \mathcal{D}\phi in these two equations. In going from the second equation to the first, we evaluate a Gaussian integral over \pi. What happens to the constant factor that originates from this step?

Specifically,

\int \exp{(-ax^2 + bx + c)} = \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{a}}\exp{\left(\frac{b^2}{4a} +c\right)}

and so

\int \exp{\int d^{4}x(-a\phi^2 + b\phi + c)} = \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{a}}\exp{\int d^{4}x\exp{\left(\frac{b^2}{4a} +c\right)}
 
Anyone?
 
maverick280857 said:
What happens to the constant factor that originates from this step?
It gets absorbed into the definition of {\cal D}\phi, which changes (by that constant factor) from one equation to the next.
 
Avodyne said:
It gets absorbed into the definition of {\cal D}\phi, which changes (by that constant factor) from one equation to the next.

I see, thanks Avodyne...I just wanted to confirm that.
 
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 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
482
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K