In 1922 Norbert Wiener [I], treating the Brownian motion of a particle, introduced a measure on the space of continuous real functions, and a corresponding integral. In 1948 Richard Feynman [2], studying the quantum me-chanics of a particle, introduced a different integral over the same space. He also showed that his integral can be used to represent the solution of the initial value
In 1922 Norbert Wiener [I], treating the Brownian motion of a particle, introduced a measure on the space of continuous real functions, and a corresponding integral. In 1948 Richard Feynman [2], studying the quantum me-chanics of a particle, introduced a different integral over the same space. He also showed that his integral can be used to represent the solution of the initial value
The aim of this book is to present and explain the concept of the path integral which is intensively used nowadays in almost all the branches of theoretical physics. The notion of path integral (sometimes also called functional integral or integral over trajectories or integral over histories or continuous integral) was introduced, for the first time, in the 1920s by Norbert Wiener (1921, 1923, 1924, 1930) as a method to solve problems in the theory of diffusion and Brownian motion. This integral, which is now also called the Wiener integral, has played a central role in the further development of the subject of path integration.
One usually refers the concept of Feynman path integral to the work of Norbert Wiener on Brownian motion in the early 1920s. This view is not false and we show in this article that Wiener used the first path integral of the history of physics to describe the Brownian motion. That said, Wiener, as he pointed out, was inspired by the work of some French mathematicians, particularly Gateaux and Levy. Moreover, although Richard Feynman has independently found this notion, we show that in the course of the 1930s, while searching a kind of geometrization of quantum mechanics, another French mathematician, Adolphe Buhl, noticed by the philosopher Gaston Bachelard, had himself been close to forge such a notion. This reminder does not detract from the remarkable discovery of Feynman, which must undeniably be attributed to him. We also show, however, that the difficulties of this notion had to wait many years before being resolved, and it was only recently that the path integral could be rigorously established from a mathematical point of view.
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.
In the setting of Cameron and Storvick's recent theory we show that the solution of an integral equation formally equivalent to the Schroedinger equation is expressible as the analytic Feynman integral of a function on ^-dimensional Wiener space of the form F(X) = exp{/ o '0(ίs, X(s) + I) ds}ψ(X(t\+ ?).Here Xis an Revalued continuous function on [0, /] such that Z(0) = 0, ?G R\ and ψ and θ(s, ) are Fourier-Stieltjes transforms.REMARK 3.2.Corollary 3.2 and Lemma 3.2 will yield the measurability properties that we will need as we continue.For example, let θ be in % and for λ > 0 and fin W let G: [0, ί 0 ] X C[0, t 0 ] -> C be defined by The Pacific
(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