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:0906.1230

The Feynman integral as a limit of complex measures

José L. Martínez-Morales

Published Jun 5, 2009• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The fundamental solution of the Schrödinger equation for a free particle is a distribution. This distribution can be approximated by a sequence of smooth functions. It is defined for each one of these functions, a complex measure on the space of paths. For certain test functions, the limit of the integrals of a test function with respect to the complex measures, exists. We define the Feynman integral of one such function by this limit.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.0906.1230

Related papers

Mathematics of the Feynman path integral

Vassili Nikitich Kolokoltsov

(and its generalisations that include magnetic fields) can be roughly divided into two classes. In the aproaches of the first class that we shall not discuss here in detail the Feynman integral is not supposed to be a genuine integral, but is specified as some generalised functional on an appropriate space of functions, which can be defined, for example, as the limit of certain discrete approximations (see e.g. [16], [44] and more recent papers [24], [25], [34]), by means of analytical continuation (see e.g. [26], [23] and references therein), by extensions of Parceval’s identity and by related axiomatic definitions (see [2], [5], [30], [11], [42] and references therein) or by means of the white noise analysis (see [22]), see also [46] for the discussion of path integral applied to the Dirac equation. These approaches still cover only a very restrictive class of potentials, for example, singular potentials were considered only by white noise analysis approach but only in one-dimensional case (see e.g. [6] and references therein). In the approaches of the second class, one tries to define the infinite-dimensional Feynmann integral as a genuine integral over a bona fide σ-additive measure on an appropriate space of trajectories. The first attempt made in [19] to construct such a measure was erronious and led to understanding that there is no direct generalisation of Wiener measure that can give an analog of FeynmanKac formula for the case of Schrodinger operators. A correct construction of the Feynman integral in terms of the Wiener measure was proposed in [15] and was based on the idea of the rotation of the classical trajectories in complex

•Jan 1, 2001•2 citations

On the convergence of the Feynman path integral for a certain class of potentials

Vassilis G. Papanicolaou

A direct proof is given of the convergence of the discretized Feynman path integral to the fundamental solution of the (time-dependent) Schrödinger equation, for potentials which are bounded, integrable and continuous on the real line. No further smoothness assumptions are required.

Journal of Mathematical Physics•Feb 1, 1990•2 citations

On path integral solutions of the Schrödinger equation, without limiting procedure

Maurice M. Mizrahi

Techniques for integration in function spaces which are not necessarily vector spaces are presented in the light of DeWitt-Morette’s recent redefinition of path integrals, which does not involve the usual limiting process, and is therefore free from the ambiguities inherent in this approach. General translated Gaussian measures defined by their Fourier transforms are introduced on various path spaces and used to derive generalized moments formulas, and what is essentially the Feynman–Kac formula for the expression of solutions of the Schrödinger equation as functional integrals.

Journal of Mathematical Physics•Apr 1, 1976•55 citations

On convergence of the Feynman path integral in phase space

Wataru Ichinose

It was an interested and important problem to give the description of quantization, i.e. of passing from classical physical systems to the corresponding quantum ones, from the moment that quantum mechanics came into existence. In the end we succeeded in giving it as follows: Let L be a Lagrangian function. Then the Hamiltonian function H is defined through the Legendre transformation of L. The Hamiltonian operator ( ) at time in quantum mechanics is defined from H. It should be noted that ( ) has ordering ambiguities (cf. [14]). Let be a probability amplitude at time . Then its temporal evolution can be given by the solution of the Schrodinger equation

Osaka Journal of Mathematics•Mar 1, 2002•1 citation

Path integration with non-positive distributions and applications to the Schrödinger equation

Ekaterina S. Nathanson

In 1948, Richard Feynman published the first paper on his new approach to non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Before Feynman's work there were two mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics. Schrödinger's formulation was based on PDE (the Schrödinger equation) and states representation by wave functions, so it was in the framework of analysis and differential equations. The other formulation was Heisenberg's matrix algebra. Initially, they were thought to be competing. The proponents of one claimed that the other was “ wrong. ” Within a couple of years, John von Neumann had proved that they are equivalent.\nAlthough Feynman's theory was not fundamentally new, it nonetheless offered an entirely fresh and different perspective: via a precise formulation of Bohr's correspondence principle, it made quantum mechanics similar to classical mechanics in a precise sense. In addition, Feynman's approach made it possible to explain physical experiments, and, via diagrams, link them directly to computations. What resulted was a very powerful device for computing energies and scattering amplitudes - the famous Feynman's diagrams.\nIn his formulation, Feynman aimed at representing the solution to the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation in the form of an “ average ” over histories or paths of a particle. This solution is commonly known as the Feynman path integral. It plays an important role in the theory but appears as a postulate based on intuition coming from physics rather than a justified mathematical object. This is why Feynman's vision has caught the attention of many mathematicians as well as physicists.\nThe papers of Gelfand, Cameron, and Nelson are among the first, and more substantial, attempts to supply Feynman's theory with a rigorous mathematical foundation. These attempts were followed by many others, but unfortunately all of them were not quite satisfactory. The difficulty comes from a need to define a measure on an infinite-dimensional space of continuous functions that represent all possible paths of a particle. This Feynman's measure has to produce an integral with the properties requested by Feynman. In particular, the expression for the Feynman measure has to involve the non-absolutely integrable Fresnel integrands. The non-absolute integrability of the Fresnel integrands makes the measure fail to be positive and to have the countably additive property. Thus, a well-defined measure in the case of the Feynman path integral does not exist.\nExtensive research has been done on the methods of relating the Feynman path integral to the integral with respect to the Wiener measure. The method of analytic continuation in mass defines the Feynman path integral as a certain limit of the Wiener integrals. Unfortunately, this method can be used as definition for only almost all values of the mass parameter in the Schrödinger equation. For physicists, this is not a satisfactory result and needs to be improved.\nIn this work we examine those questions which originally led to the Feynman path integral. By now we know that Feynman's “ dream ” cannot be realized as a positive and countably additive measure on the path-space. Here, we offer a new way out by modifying Feynman's question, and thereby achieving a solution to the Schrödinger equation via a different kind of averages in the path-space.\nWe give our version of the question that Feynman “ should have asked ” in order to realize the elusive path integral. In our formulation, we get a Feynman path integral as a limit of linear functionals, as opposed to the more familiar inductive limits of positive measures, traditionally used for constructing the Wiener measure, and related Gaussian families. We adapt here an approach pioneered by Patrick Muldowney. In it, Muldowney suggested a Henstock integration technique in order to deal with the non-absolute integrability of the kind of Fresnel integrals which we need in our solution to Feynman's question. By applying Henstock's theory to Fresnel integrals, we construct a complex-valued “ probability distribution functions ” on the path-space. Then we use this “ probability ” distribution function to define the Feynman path integral as an inductive limit. This establishes a mathematically rigorous Feynman limit, and at the same time, preserves Feynman's intuitive idea in resulting functional. In addition, our definition, and our solution, do not place any restrictions on any of the parameters in the Schrödinger equation, and have a potential to offer useful computational experiments, and other theoretical insights.

•Jul 1, 2014•5 citations

A short derivation of Feynman formula

Alejandro Rivero

The complex exponential weighting of Feynman formalism is seen to happen at the classical level. (Finiteness of) Feynman path integral formula is suspected then to appear as a consistency condition for the existence of certain Dirac measures over functional spaces.

arXiv:quant-ph/9803035•Mar 14, 1998•4 citations
The fundamental solution of the Schrödinger equation for a free particle is a distribution. This distribution can be approximated by a sequence of smooth functions. It is defined for each one of these functions, a complex measure on the space of paths. For certain test functions, the limit of the integrals of a test function with respect to the complex measures, exists. We define the Feynman integral of one such function by this limit.
(and its generalisations that include magnetic fields) can be roughly divided into two classes. In the aproaches of the first class that we shall not discuss here in detail the Feynman integral is not supposed to be a genuine integral, but is specified as some generalised functional on an appropriate space of functions, which can be defined, for example, as the limit of certain discrete approximations (see e.g. [16], [44] and more recent papers [24], [25], [34]), by means of analytical continuation (see e.g. [26], [23] and references therein), by extensions of Parceval’s identity and by related axiomatic definitions (see [2], [5], [30], [11], [42] and references therein) or by means of the white noise analysis (see [22]), see also [46] for the discussion of path integral applied to the Dirac equation. These approaches still cover only a very restrictive class of potentials, for example, singular potentials were considered only by white noise analysis approach but only in one-dimensional case (see e.g. [6] and references therein). In the approaches of the second class, one tries to define the infinite-dimensional Feynmann integral as a genuine integral over a bona fide σ-additive measure on an appropriate space of trajectories. The first attempt made in [19] to construct such a measure was erronious and led to understanding that there is no direct generalisation of Wiener measure that can give an analog of FeynmanKac formula for the case of Schrodinger operators. A correct construction of the Feynman integral in terms of the Wiener measure was proposed in [15] and was based on the idea of the rotation of the classical trajectories in complex
Techniques for integration in function spaces which are not necessarily vector spaces are presented in the light of DeWitt-Morette’s recent redefinition of path integrals, which does not involve the usual limiting process, and is therefore free from the ambiguities inherent in this approach. General translated Gaussian measures defined by their Fourier transforms are introduced on various path spaces and used to derive generalized moments formulas, and what is essentially the Feynman–Kac formula for the expression of solutions of the Schrödinger equation as functional integrals.
It was an interested and important problem to give the description of quantization, i.e. of passing from classical physical systems to the corresponding quantum ones, from the moment that quantum mechanics came into existence. In the end we succeeded in giving it as follows: Let L be a Lagrangian function. Then the Hamiltonian function H is defined through the Legendre transformation of L. The Hamiltonian operator ( ) at time in quantum mechanics is defined from H. It should be noted that ( ) has ordering ambiguities (cf. [14]). Let be a probability amplitude at time . Then its temporal evolution can be given by the solution of the Schrodinger equation
In 1948, Richard Feynman published the first paper on his new approach to non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Before Feynman's work there were two mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics. Schrödinger's formulation was based on PDE (the Schrödinger equation) and states representation by wave functions, so it was in the framework of analysis and differential equations. The other formulation was Heisenberg's matrix algebra. Initially, they were thought to be competing. The proponents of one claimed that the other was “ wrong. ” Within a couple of years, John von Neumann had proved that they are equivalent.\nAlthough Feynman's theory was not fundamentally new, it nonetheless offered an entirely fresh and different perspective: via a precise formulation of Bohr's correspondence principle, it made quantum mechanics similar to classical mechanics in a precise sense. In addition, Feynman's approach made it possible to explain physical experiments, and, via diagrams, link them directly to computations. What resulted was a very powerful device for computing energies and scattering amplitudes - the famous Feynman's diagrams.\nIn his formulation, Feynman aimed at representing the solution to the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation in the form of an “ average ” over histories or paths of a particle. This solution is commonly known as the Feynman path integral. It plays an important role in the theory but appears as a postulate based on intuition coming from physics rather than a justified mathematical object. This is why Feynman's vision has caught the attention of many mathematicians as well as physicists.\nThe papers of Gelfand, Cameron, and Nelson are among the first, and more substantial, attempts to supply Feynman's theory with a rigorous mathematical foundation. These attempts were followed by many others, but unfortunately all of them were not quite satisfactory. The difficulty comes from a need to define a measure on an infinite-dimensional space of continuous functions that represent all possible paths of a particle. This Feynman's measure has to produce an integral with the properties requested by Feynman. In particular, the expression for the Feynman measure has to involve the non-absolutely integrable Fresnel integrands. The non-absolute integrability of the Fresnel integrands makes the measure fail to be positive and to have the countably additive property. Thus, a well-defined measure in the case of the Feynman path integral does not exist.\nExtensive research has been done on the methods of relating the Feynman path integral to the integral with respect to the Wiener measure. The method of analytic continuation in mass defines the Feynman path integral as a certain limit of the Wiener integrals. Unfortunately, this method can be used as definition for only almost all values of the mass parameter in the Schrödinger equation. For physicists, this is not a satisfactory result and needs to be improved.\nIn this work we examine those questions which originally led to the Feynman path integral. By now we know that Feynman's “ dream ” cannot be realized as a positive and countably additive measure on the path-space. Here, we offer a new way out by modifying Feynman's question, and thereby achieving a solution to the Schrödinger equation via a different kind of averages in the path-space.\nWe give our version of the question that Feynman “ should have asked ” in order to realize the elusive path integral. In our formulation, we get a Feynman path integral as a limit of linear functionals, as opposed to the more familiar inductive limits of positive measures, traditionally used for constructing the Wiener measure, and related Gaussian families. We adapt here an approach pioneered by Patrick Muldowney. In it, Muldowney suggested a Henstock integration technique in order to deal with the non-absolute integrability of the kind of Fresnel integrals which we need in our solution to Feynman's question. By applying Henstock's theory to Fresnel integrals, we construct a complex-valued “ probability distribution functions ” on the path-space. Then we use this “ probability ” distribution function to define the Feynman path integral as an inductive limit. This establishes a mathematically rigorous Feynman limit, and at the same time, preserves Feynman's intuitive idea in resulting functional. In addition, our definition, and our solution, do not place any restrictions on any of the parameters in the Schrödinger equation, and have a potential to offer useful computational experiments, and other theoretical insights.