The R. P. Feynman path integrals provide an alternative version of quantum mechanics. This approach is outlined since Feynman applied it to describe macroscopic beam divergence. Feynman was fascinated by the principle of least action and he gave a lecture on this topic in the Feynman Lectures of Physics. This principle can be used to describe the possible paths of a particle from an initial to a final point. A Feynman diagram in its simplest form depicts a sequence of events, from left to right, as a function of time. Other diagrams are 2D with space on the horizontal axis and time on the vertical axis. The diagram that is going to consider depicts the absorption and emission of light as a function of time. An additional example involves the pictorial description, using the Feynman diagrams, of the third harmonic generation given by P. N. Butcher and D. Cotter.
The R. P. Feynman path integrals provide an alternative version of quantum mechanics. This approach is outlined since Feynman applied it to describe macroscopic beam divergence. Feynman was fascinated by the principle of least action and he gave a lecture on this topic in the Feynman Lectures of Physics. This principle can be used to describe the possible paths of a particle from an initial to a final point. A Feynman diagram in its simplest form depicts a sequence of events, from left to right, as a function of time. Other diagrams are 2D with space on the horizontal axis and time on the vertical axis. The diagram that is going to consider depicts the absorption and emission of light as a function of time. An additional example involves the pictorial description, using the Feynman diagrams, of the third harmonic generation given by P. N. Butcher and D. Cotter.
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.
This chapter presents Feynman’s formulation of quantum mechanics, based on a path integral representation of the evolution operator. The chapter presents detailed examples which make it possible to understand clearly Feynman’s “sum over paths,” and it contains a complete discussion of how to calculate Gaussian path integrals. It also discusses the Euclidean version of the path integral, as well as Wick’s theorem and Feynman diagrams. Finally, it discusses instantons in quantum mechanics.
In this lecture a short introduction is given into the theory of the Feynman path integral in quantum mechanics. The general formulation in Riemann spaces will be given based on the Weyl- ordering prescription, respectively product ordering prescription, in the quantum Hamiltonian. Also, the theory of space-time transformations and separation of variables will be outlined. As elementary examples I discuss the usual harmonic oscillator, the radial harmonic oscillator, and the Coulomb potential. Lecture given at the graduate college ''Quantenfeldtheorie und deren Anwendung in der Elementarteilchen- und Festkörperphysik'', Universität Leipzig, 16-26 November 1992.
18.1 Introduction The Feynman path-integral (PI) approach to quantum mechanics (QM) has proven to be an invaluable technical tool with applicability far beyond the non-relativistic QM from which it sprang (Feynman and Hibbs, 1965). The PI approach is based on a fundamental quantum principle, which is that nothing can or should be said with certainty about a system under observation (SUO) when it is not actually being observed. This is in complete contrast to classical mechanics (CM), which asserts that an SUO exists in a well-defined state at all times, regardless of whether it is being observed or not. It is a remarkable fact that what appears to be a metaphysical point actually underpins the principles of quantum physics. The quantum principle that we cannot say precisely in classical terms what an SUO is doing when we are not observing it has a powerful corollary: if we cannot say what the SUO is doing when we are not observing it, then we have to allow for the possibility that it could be doing anything, or at least anything that would be consistent with required conservation laws, behind our backs. Following a lead from Dirac (1933), Feynman developed and popularized a mathematical way of expressing this idea: the path integral. We shall discuss his approach in the case of an SUO consisting of a Newtonian point particle moving in one spatial dimension. Discrete time (DT) comes into the picture right at the start of the formulation.
To describe physics properly, we need to take into account quantum effects. Thus, for every non-quantum physical theory, we must come up with an appropriate quantum theory. A traditional approach is to replace all the scalars in the classical description of this theory by the corresponding operators. The problem with the above approach is that due to non-commutativity of the quantum operators, two mathematically equivalent formulations of the classical theory can lead to different (non-equivalent) quantum theories. An alternative quantization approach that directly transforms the non-quantum action functional into the appropriate quantum theory, was indeed proposed by the Nobelist Richard Feynman, under the name of path integration. Feynman path integration is not just a foundational idea, it is actually an efficient computing tool (Feynman diagrams).\nFrom the pragmatic viewpoint, Feynman path integral is a great success. However, from the foundational viewpoint, we still face an important question: why the Feynman's path integration formula? In this paper, we provide a natural explanation for Feynman's path integration formula.