Why do particles travel along smooth paths in quantum mechanics?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of particles in quantum mechanics, specifically focusing on the path integral formulation and its relationship with Brownian motion. Participants explore the implications of smooth versus nowhere smooth paths in the context of quantum mechanics and stochastic calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the path integral formulation is analogous to the diffusion equation, highlighting that almost every path contributing to the integral is nowhere differentiable, while smooth paths contribute zero.
  • Another participant questions the distribution of actions over certain intervals, suggesting randomness as a possible explanation but expressing uncertainty about the reasoning.
  • A participant reiterates the property of Brownian motion regarding the integral of squared differences, questioning the notation and the implications of having two 'dt's in the expression.
  • One participant acknowledges a mistake in notation regarding the integral and clarifies that the integral of squared differences for nowhere smooth paths is generally non-zero, while it is zero for smooth paths.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the mathematical properties discussed, particularly regarding the behavior of paths in quantum mechanics. There is no consensus on the conclusions drawn from the properties of Brownian motion and path integrals.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their understanding of stochastic calculus and the implications of the mathematical expressions used, which may affect the clarity of the discussion.

LukeD
Messages
354
Reaction score
3
I haven't been studying quantum mechanics for very long, and I've only just started reading about the path integral formulation, so I don't know many of the details yet, but I noticed something peculiar.

The path integral formulation is possible because of the similarities of the Schroedinger Equation with the Diffusion Equation. The probability density in the Diffusion Equation can be arrived at by considering a path integral over Brownian motion. Almost every path that contributes to the integral is a nowhere differential path (and the smooth paths actually contribute 0 to the integral)

An elementary property of Brownian Motion is that \int_0^T (x(t+dt) - x(t))^2 dt \propto T for almost every path (the probability of this not being true for a path is 0). On the other hand, for any differentiable path, this integral gives 0 due to the derivative being bounded.

The Feynman Path Integral is built using the same math. Now we arrive at the wave function by considering a path integral over Brownian motion. The function that we integrate however is a complex function and the wave function we compute is not a probability distribution but a square root of a probability distribution.

Now keeping that in mind, I compute <\psi|(U^\dagger(\Delta t) x U(\Delta t) - x)^2|\psi> \rightarrow (\Delta t)^2. This is actually a pretty easy calculation, it follows from the unitarity of U and time independence of the Hamiltonian.

However, if I integrate this quantity over some finite time, I get 0. If I had some contribution to this average from the nowhere smooth paths in Brownian Motion, I would get something proportional to the time of travel.

What happened to my nowhere smooth paths? How did they all cancel out? (Also, am I correct in my conclusion that they do cancel out?)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If the above argument is valid, their actions are obviously distributed evenly over both S in [0, hbar*Pi) and S+Pi (or perhaps as my professor Bob Suter suggested, completely randomly), but I can't see this...
 
Last edited:
LukeD said:
An elementary property of Brownian Motion is that \int_0^T (x(t+dt) - x(t))^2 dt \propto T for almost every path (the probability of this not being true for a path is 0). On the other hand, for any differentiable path, this integral gives 0 due to the derivative being bounded.
Maybe my stochastic calculus is not good enough, but that result looks bizarre. I don't understand why there are two 'dt's on the LHS, nor why the integral of an infintesimal quantity over a finite region is finite.
 
Sorry, I was being a little loose with my notation (though I think you'd probably read that integral the way I intended it. Now that I think about it, that second dt shouldn't have been there)

The way that integral is written in Steven Shreve's books is

\lim_{\| \Pi \| \rightarrow 0} \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} [f(x_{j+1}) - f(x_j)]^2

It is a peculiar property of nowhere smooth paths, that this integral is generally non-zero. (Though for smooth paths, you are correct that (f(x_{j+1}) - f(x_j))^2 is infinitesimal, and the integral gives 0)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K