Sakurai's treatment of Feynman's Path Integral

mattlorig
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
I just finished reading Sakurai's treatment of feynman's path integral, and I'm left feeling really stupid. So the integral gives the propagator, which represents a transition amplitude. I'm left wondering what we use that for. Perhaps I'll understand when I start working some problems, or perhaps after I read the derivation a few more times. But, just to cover my bases, can anybody recommend a different source of the path integral derivation (which, according to sakurai really isn't a derivation)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The propagator is good for a lot of things. It gives you a complete solution to the Schrodinger equation for arbitrary initial conditions so that if K(x,t;x',t') is the propagator then

\psi(x,t) = \int dx' \, K(x,t;x',0) \psi(x',0)

and \psi(x,t) satisfies the Schrodinger equation. It can do a lot more too, it encodes all the information about the bound states and their energies.

Sakurai's treatment is rather terse. A great source for path integrals in general is "Techniques and Applications of Path Integration" by Schulman. A good online source is http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0004090
 
mattlorig said:
I just finished reading Sakurai's treatment of feynman's path integral, and I'm left feeling really stupid. ... can anybody recommend a different source of the path integral derivation (which, according to sakurai really isn't a derivation)?

Go straight to the source, Feynman himself! He is justly well-known for providing good physical pictures behind the math. See the thread "I need some bibliography" for some of his writings ...

David
 
I recommend the book by Ramond "Quantum field theory, a modern primer"
Path integral methods is a powerful tool in Quantum field theory,
particularly in Gauge field theory.
 
I also like Cohen-Tannoudji's axiomatical treatmeant of path-integrals. In the first volume of his QM book.

Daniel.
 
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