Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:0712.4353 · Journal of Physics Conference Series

Boundary conditions: The path integral approach

M. Asorey, Jesús Clemente-Gallardo, J. M. Munõz-Castañeda

Published Nov 1, 2007• 12 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The path integral approach to quantum mechanics requires a substantial generalisation to describe the dynamics of systems confined to bounded domains. Nonlocal boundary conditions can be introduced in Feynman's approach by means of boundary amplitude distributions and complex phases to describe the quantum dynamics in terms of the classical trajectories. The different prescriptions involve only trajectories reaching the boundary and correspond to different choices of boundary conditions of selfadjoint extensions of the Hamiltonian. One dimensional particle dynamics is analysed in detail.

DOI
10.1088/1742-6596/87/1/012004

Related papers

Path integrals and boundary conditions

M. Asorey, Alberto Ibort, Giuseppe Marmo

The path integral approach to quantum mechanics provides a method of quantization of dynamical systems directly from the Lagrange formalism. In field theory the method presents some advantages over Hamiltonian quantization. The Lagrange formalism preserves relativistic covariance which makes the Feynman method very convenient to achieve the renormalization of field theories both in perturbative and non-perturbative approaches. However, when the systems are confined in bounded domains we shall show that the path integral approach does not describe the most general type of boundary conditions. Highly non-local boundary conditions cannot be described by Feynman's approach. We analyse in this note the origin of this problem in quantum mechanics and its implications for field theory.

arXiv:quant-ph/0609023•Sep 4, 2006•4 citations

Path-integrals in dynamics

A. M. Arthurs

The Lagrangian formulation of quantum dynamics in terms of path-integrals due to Feynman describes systems for which the Hamiltonian is classical in form and quantization is carried out in terms of commutators rather than anticommutators. The difficulty with the Feynman method is the actual evaluation of the pathintegral itself. An explicit evaluation is given for classical wave motion in one dimension. This requires an extension of the Feynman method which was introduced by Tobocman and studied in detail by Davies. The work of Corson on the question of a unified formulation of dynamics is discussed. (Author)

•Nov 1, 1965•0 citations

Critical Review of Path Integral Formulation

Takehisa Fujita

The path integral formulation in quantum mechanics corresponds to the first quantization since it is just to rewrite the quantum mechanical amplitude into many dimensional integrations over discretized coordinates $x_n$. However, the path integral expression cannot be connected to the dynamics of classical mechanics, even though, superficially, there is some similarity between them. Further, the field theory path integral in terms of many dimensional integrations over fields does not correspond to the field quantization. We clarify the essential difference between Feynman's original formulation of path integral in QED and the modern version of the path integral method prevailing in lattice field theory calculations, and show that the former can make a correct second quantization while the latter cannot quantize fields at all and its physical meaning is unknown.

arXiv:0801.1933•Jan 13, 2008•1 citation

The Feynman Path Integral

N. Cabibbo, Luciano Maiani, Omar Benhar A

This Chapter introduces the Feynman Path Integral description of quantum transition amplitudes, considering the simplest case of a quantum system described by one quantum variable q and its conjugate momentum p . The transition amplitude from time https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> t 1 to time https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> t 2 = t 1 + T is obtained by discretising the time axis in N time steps of amplitude https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> ϵ , implying T=N https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> ϵ . For https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> ϵ → 0 , the Feynman Path Integral formula is derived: https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> < q N | e - i T H / ℏ | q 0 > = ∫ d [ q ( t ) ] e i S q ( t ) , q ' ( t ) / ℏ , where integration is over all trajectories https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> q ( t ) which satisfy the boundary conditions at https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> t 1 and t 2 . https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> S ( q , q ' ) is the classical Action, a function of https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> q and of its time derivative. The classical limit, corresponding to https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> ℏ → 0 , is considered, whereby the solution of the Feynman Path Integral reduces to the classical trajectory, https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> q c ( t ) , which minimises the classical Action. The lattice approximation , i.e. small, non vanishing https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> ϵ , with evaluation of the Feynman integral by numerical integration, provides a useful approximation in the case of the fundamental theory of the strong interactions (Quantum Chromodynamics, or QCD), to be considered later; Chapters 17 to19. This chapter is completed by consideration of the extension of gthe formalism to imaginary time, where the Feynman Path Integral becomes the Partition Function of Statistical Mechanics, and by the definition of the Green's functions, ground-state expectation values of products of quantum operators q(t) taken at different times, https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> t 1 , t 2 … t N .

CRC Press eBooks•Oct 22, 2025•0 citations

Path Integral Representation

Boris V. Svistunov, Egor S. Babaev, Nikolay V. Prokof'ev

Quantum mechanics is often contrasted with its classical counterpart. This distinction is nearly “washed out” when quantum statistics for bosonic systems are formulated in terms of Feynman’s path integrals [1]. These provide a unique possibility of projecting subtle quantum mechanical properties into the language of classical statistics of closed trajectories in (d+1)-dimensional space. We note, however, that the corresponding projection and an intuition associated with it require that the statistics of path integrals be sign-positive (which is not the case for the generic fermionic system). Indeed, for the positive definite statistics, one can appeal to properties of “typical” configurations contributing to the answer and then estimate probabilities of atypical configurations to occur. If configurations contribute to the statistics with the sign or, in a more general case, with phase factors, then the notion of typical and relevant configurations is misleadingconfigurations with large modulus and opposite sign cancel each other to a large degree in the final answer, and only their combined effect has a physical meaning.

CRC Press eBooks•Apr 15, 2015•2 citations

- Path Integral Formulation

S. Rajasekar, R. Velusamy

The conventional approach to quantum mechanics begins with the classical Hamiltonian and changes observables to noncommuting operators. Canonically conjugate observables have to be noncommuting operators in order to satisfy the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The dynamics of a quantum mechanical system is given by the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. In the early 1940s Feynman realized that it would be possible to construct a quantum model using the classical Lagrangian approach (a method closely related to the action integral). Dirac had earlier pointed out that eit times the Lagrangian was analogous to a transformation function for the wave function in which the wave function at one instant could be related to the wave function at a next instant in a time interval of t by multiplying with such an exponential function. Feynman found the exponential phase factor to be the action S which is the time integral of the Lagrangian. Further, he noticed that it was necessary to perform integrals over all space variables at every instant of time to find the transition amplitudes. He developed a way for describing and evaluating the integration using the idea of integral over all paths. In Feynman’s approach, the particles are described using amplitudes calculated along the paths they may or may not follow. These amplitudes behave like waves, their phase changes as the quantum system moves along the path and the amplitudes for all paths superpose and interfere. This interference between all paths is called as sum-over-histories and the resulting amplitude is connected in the same way that the amplitude of a wave function is linked to probability as magnitude-squared.

CRC Press eBooks•Dec 10, 2014•1 citation
The path integral approach to quantum mechanics requires a substantial generalisation to describe the dynamics of systems confined to bounded domains. Nonlocal boundary conditions can be introduced in Feynman's approach by means of boundary amplitude distributions and complex phases to describe the quantum dynamics in terms of the classical trajectories. The different prescriptions involve only trajectories reaching the boundary and correspond to different choices of boundary conditions of selfadjoint extensions of the Hamiltonian. One dimensional particle dynamics is analysed in detail.
The path integral approach to quantum mechanics provides a method of quantization of dynamical systems directly from the Lagrange formalism. In field theory the method presents some advantages over Hamiltonian quantization. The Lagrange formalism preserves relativistic covariance which makes the Feynman method very convenient to achieve the renormalization of field theories both in perturbative and non-perturbative approaches. However, when the systems are confined in bounded domains we shall show that the path integral approach does not describe the most general type of boundary conditions. Highly non-local boundary conditions cannot be described by Feynman's approach. We analyse in this note the origin of this problem in quantum mechanics and its implications for field theory.
The Lagrangian formulation of quantum dynamics in terms of path-integrals due to Feynman describes systems for which the Hamiltonian is classical in form and quantization is carried out in terms of commutators rather than anticommutators. The difficulty with the Feynman method is the actual evaluation of the pathintegral itself. An explicit evaluation is given for classical wave motion in one dimension. This requires an extension of the Feynman method which was introduced by Tobocman and studied in detail by Davies. The work of Corson on the question of a unified formulation of dynamics is discussed. (Author)
The path integral formulation in quantum mechanics corresponds to the first quantization since it is just to rewrite the quantum mechanical amplitude into many dimensional integrations over discretized coordinates xnx_nxn​. However, the path integral expression cannot be connected to the dynamics of classical mechanics, even though, superficially, there is some similarity between them. Further, the field theory path integral in terms of many dimensional integrations over fields does not correspond to the field quantization. We clarify the essential difference between Feynman's original formulation of path integral in QED and the modern version of the path integral method prevailing in lattice field theory calculations, and show that the former can make a correct second quantization while the latter cannot quantize fields at all and its physical meaning is unknown.
This Chapter introduces the Feynman Path Integral description of quantum transition amplitudes, considering the simplest case of a quantum system described by one quantum variable q and its conjugate momentum p . The transition amplitude from time https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> t 1 to time https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> t 2 = t 1 + T is obtained by discretising the time axis in N time steps of amplitude https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> ϵ , implying T=N https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> ϵ . For https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> ϵ → 0 , the Feynman Path Integral formula is derived: https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> < q N | e - i T H / ℏ | q 0 > = ∫ d [ q ( t ) ] e i S q ( t ) , q ' ( t ) / ℏ , where integration is over all trajectories https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> q ( t ) which satisfy the boundary conditions at https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> t 1 and t 2 . https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> S ( q , q ' ) is the classical Action, a function of https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> q and of its time derivative. The classical limit, corresponding to https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> ℏ → 0 , is considered, whereby the solution of the Feynman Path Integral reduces to the classical trajectory, https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> q c ( t ) , which minimises the classical Action. The lattice approximation , i.e. small, non vanishing https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> ϵ , with evaluation of the Feynman integral by numerical integration, provides a useful approximation in the case of the fundamental theory of the strong interactions (Quantum Chromodynamics, or QCD), to be considered later; Chapters 17 to19. This chapter is completed by consideration of the extension of gthe formalism to imaginary time, where the Feynman Path Integral becomes the Partition Function of Statistical Mechanics, and by the definition of the Green's functions, ground-state expectation values of products of quantum operators q(t) taken at different times, https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> t 1 , t 2 … t N .
Quantum mechanics is often contrasted with its classical counterpart. This distinction is nearly “washed out” when quantum statistics for bosonic systems are formulated in terms of Feynman’s path integrals [1]. These provide a unique possibility of projecting subtle quantum mechanical properties into the language of classical statistics of closed trajectories in (d+1)-dimensional space. We note, however, that the corresponding projection and an intuition associated with it require that the statistics of path integrals be sign-positive (which is not the case for the generic fermionic system). Indeed, for the positive definite statistics, one can appeal to properties of “typical” configurations contributing to the answer and then estimate probabilities of atypical configurations to occur. If configurations contribute to the statistics with the sign or, in a more general case, with phase factors, then the notion of typical and relevant configurations is misleadingconfigurations with large modulus and opposite sign cancel each other to a large degree in the final answer, and only their combined effect has a physical meaning.
The conventional approach to quantum mechanics begins with the classical Hamiltonian and changes observables to noncommuting operators. Canonically conjugate observables have to be noncommuting operators in order to satisfy the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The dynamics of a quantum mechanical system is given by the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. In the early 1940s Feynman realized that it would be possible to construct a quantum model using the classical Lagrangian approach (a method closely related to the action integral). Dirac had earlier pointed out that eit times the Lagrangian was analogous to a transformation function for the wave function in which the wave function at one instant could be related to the wave function at a next instant in a time interval of t by multiplying with such an exponential function. Feynman found the exponential phase factor to be the action S which is the time integral of the Lagrangian. Further, he noticed that it was necessary to perform integrals over all space variables at every instant of time to find the transition amplitudes. He developed a way for describing and evaluating the integration using the idea of integral over all paths. In Feynman’s approach, the particles are described using amplitudes calculated along the paths they may or may not follow. These amplitudes behave like waves, their phase changes as the quantum system moves along the path and the amplitudes for all paths superpose and interfere. This interference between all paths is called as sum-over-histories and the resulting amplitude is connected in the same way that the amplitude of a wave function is linked to probability as magnitude-squared.