The Feynman maps introduced first by Truman are examined. The domain considered here consists of the Fresnel-integrable functions in the sense of Albeverio and Hoegh-Krohn; extensions to wider classes of functions will be studied in the following paper. The original definition of the F-maps is slightly modified: we start from the underlying measures on the Hilbert space of paths in order to avoid use of improper integrals. Some new properties of the F-maps are derived. In particular, the dominated convergence theorem is shown to be not valid for the F1-map (or Feynman integral); this fact is of a certain importance for the classical limit of quantum mechanics.
The Feynman maps introduced first by Truman are examined. The domain considered here consists of the Fresnel-integrable functions in the sense of Albeverio and Hoegh-Krohn; extensions to wider classes of functions will be studied in the following paper. The original definition of the F-maps is slightly modified: we start from the underlying measures on the Hilbert space of paths in order to avoid use of improper integrals. Some new properties of the F-maps are derived. In particular, the dominated convergence theorem is shown to be not valid for the F1-map (or Feynman integral); this fact is of a certain importance for the classical limit of quantum mechanics.
When the space of paths is a certain Hilbert space H, we show how to extend the Feynman path integral ℱ of DeWitt and Albeverio and Hoegh-Krohn. Our extension enables us to integrate a wider class of functionals on H. We establish a new representation for the wavefunction in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics—the quasiclassical representation. Using our extension of ℱ and the quasiclassical representation, we discuss the problem of obtaining classical mechanics as the limiting case of quantum mechanics when h/→0.
(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
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.
The definition of Feynman path integrals (Feynman functional integrals) as integrals with respect to a generalized measure, called the Lebesgue–Feynman measure in the paper and being an infinite-dimensional analogue of the classical Lebesgue measure on finite-dimensional Euclidean space, is discussed. This definition, which is a formalization of Feynman’s original definition, is different from those used previously in the mathematical literature. It makes it possible to give a description of the origin of quantum anomaly which is a mathematically correct version of the description given in the book Path Integrals and Quantum Anomalies by K. Fujikawa and H. Suzuki (Oxford, 2004) (and erroneously qualified as wrong in the book Functional Integration: Action and Symmetries by P. Cartier and C. DeWitt-Morette (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2006)).
The Feynman path integral is defined over the space RT of all possible paths; it has been a powerful tool to develop Quantum Mechanics. The absolute value of Feynman's integrand is not integrable, then Lebesgue integration theory could not be used by Feynman. However, it exists formally as a Henstock integral (which does not require the measure concept) and is a suitable alternative to the ordinary integrals that normally appear in path integrals. Feynman proved the equivalence of his theory with the traditional formulation of Quantum Mechanics, since his path integral satisfies Schrödinger's equation. On the other hand, Feynman's path integral is related to the diagrams of Feynman. For the application of this integral in Feynman's diagrams it is necessary to exchange the integral ∫RT and the series. We discuss the impossibility to exchange the integral and the sum, considering integral of Henstock and the version of Dominated Convergence Theorem. Even it has not been proved through the several mathematical formalisms that have been used.