Sunday, September 20, 2015

path integral - Solving Quantum Tunnelling Without Wick Rotation


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)21)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|eiˆHt|xm


The usual trick is to Wick rotate tiτ, 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)]/


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


¨x2x+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 τit). 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)/


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)]/


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 tiτ 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})/.


where S({xn})=Δtn{(xn+1xnΔt)2V(xn)}



At this level, the Wick rotation applies on the time slice ΔtiΔτ and does not seem to be a meaningful change of variable in the integral


I understand that if I start with an evolution operator eτˆH/ 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

classical mechanics - Moment of a force about a given axis (Torque) - Scalar or vectorial?

I am studying Statics and saw that: The moment of a force about a given axis (or Torque) is defined by the equation: $M_X = (\vec r \times \...