Quantization and Cohomology (Week 15)
Posted by John Baez
This week in our course on Quantization and Cohomology, we finished off the path-integral quantization of the free particle:
-
Week 15 (Feb. 20) - The free particle on a line (part 2). Showing the path-integral approach agrees with the Hamiltonian
approach. Fourier transforms and Gaussian integrals.
Last week’s notes are here; next week’s notes are here.
Avoiding an unpleasant direct proof that the stationary phase approximation is exact for the free particle on a line, we instead took an indirect route which covered all the basic facts about Fourier transforms and Gaussians. The Wick rotation was cleverly disguised as a little maneuver to compute the integral
which, you will note, fails to converge absolutely!
Posted at February 21, 2007 1:23 AM UTC
TrackBack URL for this Entry: http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/MT-3.0/dxy-tb.fcgi/1172
Re: Quantization and Cohomology (Week 15)
I am currently teaching a similar subject and thus are naturally very interested in how you introduce these subjects.
However I was a bit disappointed when I realised you were cheating: Your analytic continuation looks very clever but of course a priori there is no reason why you can interchange taking the integral and doing the limit k->i. You could have argued similarly and taken the limit k->-i and obtained a mess. There is another difference: As it is unitary, you can compute the quantum mechnical propagator for both positive and negative t but the heat kernel (the euclidean version) only exists for t>0. You could see this as a manifestation of QM being time reversal invariant but thermodynamics being not (because of the second law).
Re: Quantization and Cohomology (Week 15)
I agree that the oscillatory integral is not absolutely convergent. However (without remembering any good argument for it) I think it is still Lebesque integrable. Thus this one dimensional integral as it is (without giving a real part to a) can be made sense of but this is not the origin of imaginary path integrals not having a mathematical founding (as opposed to Wiener integrals) but again, I have no argument or reference at hand.
Read the post
Quantization and Cohomology (Week 16)
Weblog: The n-Category Café
Excerpt: More examples of path-integral quantization: the particle in a potential.
Tracked: February 27, 2007 11:34 PM
Read the post
QFT of Charged n-Particle: The Canonical 1-Particle
Weblog: The n-Category Café
Excerpt: On the category of paths whose canonical Leinster measure reproduces the path integral measure appearing in the quantization of the charged particle.
Tracked: March 19, 2007 9:03 PM
Re: Quantization and Cohomology (Week 15)
I am currently teaching a similar subject and thus are naturally very interested in how you introduce these subjects.
However I was a bit disappointed when I realised you were cheating: Your analytic continuation looks very clever but of course a priori there is no reason why you can interchange taking the integral and doing the limit k->i. You could have argued similarly and taken the limit k->-i and obtained a mess. There is another difference: As it is unitary, you can compute the quantum mechnical propagator for both positive and negative t but the heat kernel (the euclidean version) only exists for t>0. You could see this as a manifestation of QM being time reversal invariant but thermodynamics being not (because of the second law).