Critical Review of Path Integral Formulation Takehisa Fujita 1 Department of Physics, Faculty of Science and Technology, Nihon University, Tokyo, Japan Abstract The path integral formulation in quantum mechanics corresponds to the first quantization since it is just to rewrite the quantum mechanical amplitude into many dimensional integrations over discretized coordinates xn. However, the path integral expression cannot be connected to the dynamics of classical mechanics, even though, superficially, there is some similarity between them. Further, the field theory path integral in terms of many dimensional integrations over fields does not correspond to the field quantization. We clarify the essential difference between Feynman’s original formulation of path integral in QED and the modern version of the path integral arXiv:0801.1933v1 [hep-th] 13 Jan 2008 method prevailing in lattice field theory calculations, and show that the former can make a correct second quantization while the latter cannot quantize fields at all and its physical meaning is unknown. 1 Introduction The path integral expression in quantum mechanics can be obtained by rewriting the quantum mechanical amplitude K(x,x′ : t) = x′ e−iHt x into many dimensional h | | i integrations over discretized coordinates xn. This formulation can be related to physical observables and we discuss a good example of harmonic oscillator which can be evaluated analytically. However, one should be careful for the statement that the path integral formulation can be connected to the dynamics of classical mechanics. At a glance, one may feel that the path integral formulation can be written in terms of the Lagrangian of the classical mechanics. However, one can easily convince oneself that the path integral expression cannot be related to the time derivative of the two 1e-mail: ff[email protected] 1 coordinates x and x − since they have to be varied independently from to k k 1 −∞ in the path integral formulation. On the other hand, if it is a time derivative, ∞ then the difference of (x x − ) should be kept sufficiently small within a distance k − k 1 ∆t in this context. The interesting point of the path integral is that, if one starts from the Lagrangian in classical mechanics, then one can quantize the system by the path integral formulation in which one does not have to solve the Schr¨odinger equation, but it has nothing to do with the dynamics of classical mechanics such as the summation of classical paths. Then, we show Feynman’s formulation of the field theory path integral in quan- tum electrodynamics (QED), which is based on many dimensional integrations over the parameters qk,λ appearing in the vector potential. This should be indeed con- nected to the second quantization in field theory models since the procedure is es- sentially based on the path integral formulation in quantum mechanics of parameter space. However, the field theory path integral formulation in most of the textbooks is normally defined in terms of many dimensional integrations over fields. In this case, the path integral method does not correspond to the field quantization. Here, we clarify what should be the problems of the path integral formulation over the field variables and why the integrations over fields do not correspond to the field quantization. 2 Path Integral in Quantum Mechanics The path integral formulation in one dimensional quantum mechanics starts from the amplitude K(x,x′ : t) which is defined by K(x,x′ : t)= x′ e−iHt x (2.1) h | | i where the system is specified by the Hamiltonian H. In the field theory textbooks, one often finds the expression of the amplitude K(x,x′ : t) in terms of the transition between the state x,t and x′,t′ as | i | i ′ x′,t′ x,t x′ e−iH(t −t) x . (2.2) h | i → h | | i However, the state x,t is not an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian and therefore, one | i cannot prove the rightarrow of eq.(2.2). Instead, we should rewrite the amplitude K(x,x′ : t) so as to understand its physical meaning K(x,x′ : t)= x′ e−iHt x = ψ (x′)ψ† (x)e−iEnt (2.3) h | | i n n n X where ψn(x) and En should be the eigenstate and the eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian H. We note that eq.(2.3) is not yet directly related to physical observables. 2.1 Path Integral Expression We start from the amplitude K(x′,x : t) K(x′,x : t)= x′ e−iHt x h | | i 2 where the Hamiltonian in one dimension is given as pˆ2 1 ∂2 H = + U(x)= + U(x). (2.4) 2m −2m ∂x2 Here, a particle with its mass m is bound in the potential U(x). Now, one can make n partitions of t and x′ x, and therefore we label the discretized coordinate x as − x = x , x , x , , x′ = x . (2.5) 0 1 2 · · · n In this case, we assume that each xi and p should satisfy the following completeness relations ∞ ∞ 1 ipxi dxi xi xi = 1, xi p = e , dp p p = 1, (i = 1, ,n). (2.6) | ih | h | i √2π | ih | · · · Z−∞ Z−∞ Therefore, K(x′,x : t) becomes ∞ ∞ ′ K(x ,x : t)= dx dx − 1 · · · n 1× Z−∞ Z−∞ ′ −iH∆t −iH∆t −iH∆t x e x − x − e x − x e x (2.7) h | | n 1ih n 1| | n 2i···h 1| | i t where ∆t is defined as ∆t = n . Further, one can calculate the matrix elements, for example, as ∆t ∂2 x e−iH∆t x = x exp i + U(x)∆t x h 1| | i h 1| − −2m ∂x2 | i ∆t ∂2 exp( iU(x)∆t) x exp i x + O((∆t)2). (2.8) ≃ − h 1| 2m ∂x2 | i 2 i ∆t ∂ In addition, x e 2m ∂x2 x can be evaluated by inserting a complete set of momen- h 1| | i tum states 2 ∞ 2 m x−x 2 ∆t ∂ dp −i p ∆t −ip(x−x ) m −i ( 1) x exp i x = e 2m e 1 = e 2∆t . (2.9) h 1| 2m ∂x2 | i 2π 2iπ∆t Z−∞ r Therefore, one finds now the path integral expression for K(x′,x : t) m n K(x′,x : t) = lim 2 n→∞ 2iπ∆t × ∞ ∞ n 2 m(xk xk−1) dx1 dxn−1 exp i − U(xk)∆t (2.10a) −∞ · · · −∞ ( 2∆t − ) Z Z Xk=1 ′ where x0 = x and xn = x , respectively. Since the classical action S is given as t n 2 1 2 m xk xk−1 S = dt mx˙ U(x) = lim ∆t − U(xk) (2.11) 0 2 − n→∞ ( 2 ∆t − ) Z Xk=1 3 the amplitude can be symbolically written as t 1 K(x′,x : t)= [ x]exp i mx˙ 2 U(x) dt′ (2.10b) N D 2 − Z Z0 where [ x] is defined as N D n ∞ ∞ R m 2 [ x] lim dx1 dxn−1. N D ≡ n→∞ 2iπ∆t −∞ · · · −∞ Z Z Z This is indeed amazing in that the quantum mechanical amplitude seems to be connected to the Lagrangian of the classical mechanics for a particle with its mass m in the same potential U(x). Since the procedure of obtaining eq.(2.10a) is just to rewrite the amplitude by inserting the complete set of the x states, there is no | ni mathematical problem involved in evaluating eq.(2.10a). 2.2 Physical meaning of path integral However, the physical meaning of the result and the procedure in obtaining eqs.(2.10) is not at all easy to understand. It is clear that eq.(2.10a) is well defined and there is no problem since it simply involves mathematics. However, there is a big jump from eq.(2.10a) to eq.(2.10b), even though it looks straightforward. Eq.(2.10b) indicates that the first term of eq.(2.10b) in the curly bracket is the kinetic energy of the particle in classical mechanics. In this case, however, xk and xk−1 cannot be varied independently as one sees it from classical mechanics since it is related to the time derivative. On the other hand, they must be varied independently in the original version of eq.(2.10a) since it has nothing to do with the time derivative in the process of the evaluation. This is clear since, in quantum mechanics, time and coordinate are independent from each other. Therefore, it is difficult to interpret the first term of eq.(2.10a) as the kinetic energy term in classical mechanics. Secondly, the procedure of rewriting the amplitude is closely connected to the fact that the kinetic energy of p2 the Hamiltonian is quadratic in p, that is, it is described as 2m . In this respect, the fundamental ingredients of the path integral formulation must lie in eq.(2.9) which relates the momentum operator p2 to the time derivative of the coordinate x under the condition that xk and xk−1 are sufficiently close to each other. In this sense, if the kinetic energy operator were linear in p like the Dirac equation, then there is no chance to rewrite the amplitude since the Gaussian integral is crucial in evaluating the integral. Therefore, it should be difficult to claim that eq.(2.10a) can correspond to the dynamics of classical mechanics, even though, superficially, there is some similarity between them. In other words, it is hard to prove that the quantum mechanical expression of K(x′,x : t) is related to any dynamics of classical mechanics. One may say that K(x′,x : t) happens to have a similar shape to classical Lagrangian, mathematically, but, physically it has nothing to do with the dynamics of classical mechanics.