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:quant-ph/9803035

A short derivation of Feynman formula

Alejandro Rivero

Published Mar 14, 1998• 4 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

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.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/9803035

Related papers

The Feynman integral as a limit of complex measures

José L. Martínez-Morales

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.

arXiv:0906.1230•Jun 5, 2009•0 citations

Feynman’s path integral seen as a Henstock integral

María Guadalupe Morales, R. Gaitán

The motivation of this paper is to give mathematical formalism to the Feynman path integral using the Henstock integral. This integral saves some of Feynman's integral difficulties and justifies Feynman's intuition: to interpret the state function as "a sum of complex contributions, one from each path in the region".

Journal of Physics Conference Series•Oct 1, 2017•5 citations

Dirac and the Path Integral

N. D. Hari Dass

Through a very careful analysis of Dirac's 1932 paper on the Lagrangian in Quantum Mechanics as well as the second and third editions of his classic book {\it The Principles of Quantum Mechanics}, I show that Dirac's contributions to the birth of the path-integral approach to quantum mechanics is not restricted to just his seminal demonstration of how Lagrangians appear naturally in quantum mechanics, but that Dirac should be credited for creating a path-integral which I call {\it Dirac path-integral} which is far more general than Feynman's while possessing all its desirable features. On top of it, the Dirac path-integral is fully compatible with the inevitable quantisation ambiguities, while the Feynman path-integral can never have that full consistency. In particular, I show that the claim by Feynman that for infinitesimal time intervals, what Dirac thought were analogues were actually proportional can not be correct always. I have also shown the conection between Dirac path-integrals and the Schrödinger equation. In particular, it is shown that each choice of Dirac path-integral yields a {\it quantum Hamiltonian} that is generically different from what the Feynman path-integral gives, and that all of them have the same {\it classical analogue}. Dirac's method of demonstrating the least action principle for classical mechanics generalizes in a most straightforward way to all the generalized path-integrals.

arXiv:2003.12683•Mar 28, 2020•0 citations

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

The Feynman-Kac Formula

Gerald W Johnson, Michel L Lapidus

Abstract Be this as it may, the formal analogy between [formula (7.4.2) above] and integrals appearing in Wiener’s theory is striking and since Wiener’s theory is rigorously founded Feynman’s heuristic connection between the Schri:idinger equation and the path integral can be made into an unassailable theorem [namely, the Feynman–Kac formula].

•Mar 16, 2000•0 citations

Feynman path integrals and Lebesgue–Feynman measures

James A. Montaldi, Oleg Georgievich Smolyanov

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)).

Doklady Mathematics•Jul 1, 2017•8 citations
Through a very careful analysis of Dirac's 1932 paper on the Lagrangian in Quantum Mechanics as well as the second and third editions of his classic book {\it The Principles of Quantum Mechanics}, I show that Dirac's contributions to the birth of the path-integral approach to quantum mechanics is not restricted to just his seminal demonstration of how Lagrangians appear naturally in quantum mechanics, but that Dirac should be credited for creating a path-integral which I call {\it Dirac path-integral} which is far more general than Feynman's while possessing all its desirable features. On top of it, the Dirac path-integral is fully compatible with the inevitable quantisation ambiguities, while the Feynman path-integral can never have that full consistency. In particular, I show that the claim by Feynman that for infinitesimal time intervals, what Dirac thought were analogues were actually proportional can not be correct always. I have also shown the conection between Dirac path-integrals and the Schrödinger equation. In particular, it is shown that each choice of Dirac path-integral yields a {\it quantum Hamiltonian} that is generically different from what the Feynman path-integral gives, and that all of them have the same {\it classical analogue}. Dirac's method of demonstrating the least action principle for classical mechanics generalizes in a most straightforward way to all the generalized path-integrals.
(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
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)).