Using Path Integral to calculate propagator

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of the Path Integral method to calculate the propagator in quantum mechanics, specifically addressing the implications of classical paths and their existence in various scenarios. Participants explore theoretical aspects, counterexamples, and the conditions under which the propagator is defined.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the assumption that there exists one and only one classical path connecting two points in the context of the propagator, providing examples from harmonic oscillators where multiple or no classical paths exist.
  • Another participant suggests that if there is no classical path connecting the points, the derivation of the propagator does not hold, and one must use an alternative equation directly.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of having multiple classical paths connecting the same points, with one participant hypothesizing that if all paths yield the same action, the issue may be resolved.
  • Another participant notes that multiple classical paths may arise under unusual circumstances, such as curved spacetime or specific boundary conditions in oscillators.
  • A reference to a particle on a ring is introduced, suggesting that multiple paths can affect the quantum spectrum due to the topology of the space.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence and implications of classical paths in the context of the propagator. There is no consensus on how to handle cases with multiple or no classical paths, indicating ongoing debate and exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the assumptions made regarding classical paths and the conditions under which the propagator is defined, particularly in scenarios involving potential barriers or periodic boundary conditions.

cattlecattle
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Hi, It's great to find this forum.
I'm teaching myself QM using Shankar, it's a great book, I've covered 8 chapters so far.
My question is about the notion of using Path Integral method to calculate the propagator. The recipe given by Shankar says the propagator is
<br /> U(x,t;x&#039;)=A\int \exp{\frac{iS[x(t)]}{\hbar}}\mathcal{D}[x(t)]<br />
where the integral sums over all possible paths connecting (x',0) and (x, t)

He went on to prove that if the potential is in the form of
<br /> V=a+bx+cx^2+d\dot{x}+ex\dot{x}<br />
then the propagator has a simpler form:
<br /> U(x,t;x&#039;)=e^{iS_{cl}/\hbar}\cdot A(t)<br />

In his proof for this, he simply assumed that given x, t and x', the there exists one and only one classical path - at least the action S is well defined. But I found this part confusing, two counter examples:

1. In a harmonic oscillator of angular frequency ω, let x=x'=0, and t=2π/ω, apparently there are infinite classical paths connecting (x', 0) to (x, t) - no matter what your initial velocity, you always come back to the same spot after one full period.

2. Similarly, if x=x'=a > 0, and t=π/ω, there will be no classical paths (there's no way to come back to the same non trivial spot after half period!

In case 1, luckily all such classical paths have the same action S=0, so we can still find the propagator following U(x,t;x&#039;)=e^{iS_{cl}/\hbar}\cdot A(t)

But in case 2, there is no classical path at all, what does this imply for the propagator, does the propagator not exist? In QM, the propagator connects one state to the other, so it should always be well-defined.

I'm sure this is treated more rigorously in non-elementary Path Integral texts, but before diving into those, maybe someone here can explain in simple words what this means.
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If there is no classical path connecting the points, then his derivation doesn't obtain. In those cases, you have to use eqn 8.6.1 directly -- you don't have his shortcut. Even though there is no way for the particle to get from x to x' in time t' classically (potential barrier for example), there may be a non-zero probability of finding the particle there.
 
RUTA said:
If there is no classical path connecting the points, then his derivation doesn't obtain. In those cases, you have to use eqn 8.6.1 directly -- you don't have his shortcut. Even though there is no way for the particle to get from x to x' in time t' classically (potential barrier for example), there may be a non-zero probability of finding the particle there.

Thanks for the reply, that makes sense. What about the case where there are multiple classical paths connecting (x', t') and (x, t)? I have a hunch that this problem will go away if they all yield the same action S, but I don't know if this is true.
 
cattlecattle said:
Thanks for the reply, that makes sense. What about the case where there are multiple classical paths connecting (x', t') and (x, t)? I have a hunch that this problem will go away if they all yield the same action S, but I don't know if this is true.

I think his derivation would still hold, you would just pick a particular classical path and proceed. Multiple classical paths for the same potential require unusual circumstances (e.g., curved spacetime or wormholes). Your oscillator example produces multiple classical paths for the same potential (same frequency), because you supplied boundary conditions that are automatically satisfied per periodicity and therefore you don't have a unique solution to the second-order, classical differential equation of motion.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K