Edit
It seems that I haven't written my question clearly enough, so I will try to develop more using the example of quantum tunnelling. As a disclaimer, I want to state that my question is not about how to perform a Wick rotation in the path integral formulation!
Let's look a the probability of quantum tunnelling in the path integral formulation. The potential is given by V[x(t)]=(x(t)2−1)2, which has two minima at x=±xm=±1. Given that the particle starts at t=−∞ at x=−xm, what is the probability that it is at x=xm at t=∞. The probability amplitude is given by
K(xm,−xm,t)=⟨xm|e−iˆHt|−xm⟩
The usual trick is to Wick rotate t→−iτ, compute everything in imaginary time using a saddle point approximation and at the end of the calculation rotate back to real time. I understand how it works. No problem with that.
What I want to understand is
- how can I do the calculation without using the Wick rotation?
- how does this solution connect to the Euclidean formulation?
In principle, we should be able to do the calculation with the path integral formulation in real time
∫Dx(t)eiS[x(t)]/ℏ
In the stationary phase approximation we look for a complex path x(t) which minimizes the action, and expand about this point.
Choose m=1 for simplicity. The equation of motion is
¨x−2x+2x3=0
which has no real solution, i.e. no Newtonian (classical) solution. But there is a complex function that solves it: xs(t)=itan(t). One problem is that it behaves pretty badly. If anyway I accept this a correct solution, I should be able to compute the gaussian fluctations, add up all the kinks/antikinks, etc. and recover the correct result (usually obtained with the euclidean action and τ→−it). Am I right?
So my question is: is it possible to do the calculation that way, and if so, how is it related to the trick of going back and forth in imaginary time?
Original
I have a question on the mathematical meaning of the Wick rotation in path integrals, as it is use to compute, for instance, the probability of tunneling through a barrier (using instantons).
I am aware that when computing an ordinary integral using the Stationary Phase Approximation
∫dxeiS(x)/ℏ
with x and S real, one should look at the minimum of S(z) in the whole complex plane, which can be for instance on the Imaginary axis.
In the case of a path integral, one wants to compute
∫Dx(t)eiS[x(t)]/ℏ
and there is a priori no reason that the "classical path" from xa(ta) to xb(tb) (i.e. that minimizes S[x(t)]) should lie on the real axis. I have no problem with that. What I don't really get is the meaning of the Wick rotation t→−iτ from a (layman) mathematical point of view, because it is not as if the function x(t) is taken to be imaginary (say, x(t)→ix(t)), but it is its variable that we change !
In particular, if I discretize the path-integral (which is what one should do to make sense of it), I obtain
∫∏ndxneiS({xn})/ℏ.
where S({xn})=Δt∑n{(xn+1−xnΔt)2−V(xn)}
At this level, the Wick rotation applies on the time slice Δt→−iΔτ and does not seem to be a meaningful change of variable in the integral
I understand that if I start with an evolution operator e−τˆH/ℏ I will get the path integral after Wick rotation, but it seems to be a convoluted argument.
The question is : Is it mathematically meaningful to do the Wick rotation directly at the level of the path-integral, and especially when it is discretized?
No comments:
Post a Comment