Problem with Path Integral Expressions in Peskin And Schroeder Section 9.1

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the path integral expressions presented in Section 9.1 of Peskin and Schroeder, specifically focusing on the derivation and interpretation of various equations related to the propagator and the integration measures involved in quantum field theory. Participants explore the implications of these expressions in both theoretical and mathematical contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the origin of the factor \( C(\epsilon) \) in the expression for the propagator and suggests it may relate to the indexing of momentum and coordinate integrals.
  • Another participant seeks clarification on the notation used in the integral expressions, specifically whether the product notation is necessary when the measure \( \mathcal{D} \) implies a product already.
  • A participant expresses confusion regarding the constant factor that arises when evaluating a Gaussian integral over \( \pi \) and its treatment in the transition between two equations.
  • One reply indicates that the constant factor from the Gaussian integral is absorbed into the definition of \( \mathcal{D}\phi \), which changes between the equations.
  • A later reply confirms the previous statement about the absorption of the constant factor into the measure, seeking validation of this understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty regarding the treatment of certain factors and notation in the path integral formalism. There is no consensus on the implications of these factors or the necessity of specific notation, indicating ongoing debate and exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential ambiguities in the definitions of integration measures and the treatment of constants in Gaussian integrals, which may depend on the context of the equations being discussed.

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.
 

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
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K