Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,852 answers , 20,624 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
501 active unimported users
More ...

Why do we use functional integration in QFT?

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
592 views

Recently I learned functional integral's formalism in QFT. I have realized that I don't understand why exactly do we introduce it. We have the expression for $S$-matrix, then we may rewrite it in through functional integral.

But why do we use functional integration? I read that it helps to "conserve" gauge symmetries for massless fields and that it avoids infinite results after integration through integnal lines. But these are formal arguments. I don't understand it clearly.

Can you add some information which can help me?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-11 14:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user Andrew McAddams
asked Apr 2, 2014 in Theoretical Physics by Andrew McAddams (340 points) [ no revision ]
Some of the benefits of path integral formulation are - i) Perturbation series is easy to derive compared to Hilbert space formalism ii) All objects in path integral formulation are classical; one doesn't need to introduce quantum operatorts iii) In Hilbert space formalism one needs to choose a time slice which breaks the manifest Lorentz invariance; this is not a problem in path integral formalism iv) After Wick rotation to Euclidean space, the path integral formalism is completely equivalent to the partition function formalism of stat mech; hence use of RG methods etc is more intuitive.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-11 14:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user user10001
@user10001, (iii) is a myth FWIW, since Lorentz invariance is handled representation theoretically. Further, when you make a choice of which component is the time component, you make a similar choice in the path integral approach which supposedly "breaks the manifest Lorentz invariance".

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-11 14:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user Alex Nelson
@AlexNelson You may be right; I am not sure. However its true that in path integral formalism all the spacetime coordinates t,x,y,z are treated on equal footing which is more in the spirit of relativity. In particular, path integral formalism doesn't require the spacetime to be of the form Space X Time (as is necessarily required in Hamiltonian formalism) and hence can be used to define theories on more general manifolds including compact ones.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-11 14:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user user10001
@user10001 ...but when you say "$x^0$ is the $t$-coordinate" when doing computations in the path integral approach, you just performed the same space+time splitting as in the canonical approach. The remark that this destroys Lorentz invariance would be true if it depends on a particular choice of splitting. Since neither the canonical nor path-integral approaches explicitly depends on this choice, both are equally as Lorentz-invariant. This is particular important in quantum gravity, see, e.g., arXiv:0809.0097 for a review.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-11 14:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user Alex Nelson
@AlexNelson Its true that we choose a time coordinate but in all the expressions time and spatial coordinates appear on equal footing. There are no expressions such as Exp(itH) in which time 'appears' to be different from spatial coordinates.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-11 14:53 (UCT), posted by SE-user user10001

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysic$\varnothing$Overflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...