Statement of exercise

On a page 11 of A.Zee's book QFT in a Nutshell, he derives Dirac's formulation of the path integral formulation of QM for a free particle. This starts with the free particle Hamiltonian

$$ H = \frac{\hat{p}^2}{2m} $$

The hat on $\hat{p}$ says that it is meant as an operator. Then he divides the time interval into $N$ parts of length $\delta t$, where each part is

$$ \begin{align} \tag{1}\langle q_{j+1}|e^{-iH \delta t}|q_j\rangle & = \langle q_{j+1}|e^{-i\delta t\,\hat{p}^2 /(2m)}|q_j\rangle \\ \tag{2} & = \int\frac{dp}{2\pi}\langle q_{j+1}|e^{-i\delta t\,\hat{p}^2 /(2m)}|p\rangle\langle p|q_j\rangle \\ \tag{3} & = \int\frac{dp}{2\pi}e^{-i\delta t\,p^2 /(2m)} \langle q_{j+1}|p\rangle\langle p|q_j\rangle \end{align} $$

In $(2)$, he used $1 = \int(dp/2\pi)|p\rangle\langle p|$ with momentum eigenstates $|p\rangle$, and in $(3)$ the fact that $\hat{p}|p\rangle = p|p\rangle$.

Then he goes on to derive the fact that the time integral of the Lagrangian emerges as the exponent in

$$ \langle q_F|e^{-iHt}|q_I\rangle = \int Dq\,e^{i\int dt S} $$

Now Zee poses the exercise to derive the same thing using the Hamiltonian

$$ H = \frac{\hat{p}^2}{2m}+V(\hat{q}) $$

What I tried

I was able to derive the result, but only IF the following is true

$$ \tag{4}\left\langle q_{j+1}\middle|e^{-i\delta t\left\{\hat{p}^2/(2m)+V(\hat{q})\right\}}\middle|q_j\right\rangle = \left\langle q_{j+1}\middle|e^{-i\delta t\left\{\hat{p}^2/(2m)+V(q_j)\right\}}\middle|q_j\right\rangle $$

in other words, if I can replace $V(\hat{q})$ with $V(q_j)$, then I can prove the result, because then, I can repeat the free particle calculation and the potential appears as an extra term in the integral that depends only on $q_j$.

However, I don't know how to prove that $(4)$ is true. $\hat{p}$ and $\hat{q}$ do not commute, so $e^{\hat{p}+V(\hat{q})}$ cannot simply be factorized into $e^{\hat{p}}e^{V(\hat{q})}$.

Why do I think that $(4)$ is true?

The following approximation led me to think that $(4)$ is true:

$$ \begin{align} \tag{5}\left\langle q_{j+1}\middle|e^{-it\left\{\hat{p}^2/(2m)+V(\hat{q})\right\}}\middle|q_j\right\rangle & \approx \langle q_{j+1}|1-it\,(\hat{p}^2/2m+V(\hat{q}))+O(\delta t^2)|q_j\rangle \\ & = \langle q_{j+1}|1-it\,\hat{p}^2/2m+O(\delta t^2)|q_j\rangle - i\delta t\langle q_{j+1}|V(\hat{q})|q_j\rangle \\ \tag{7}& = \langle q_{j+1}|1-it\,\hat{p}^2/2m+O(\delta t^2)|q_j\rangle - i\delta t\langle q_{j+1}|V(q_j)|q_j\rangle \\ & = \langle q_{j+1}|1-it\,(\hat{p}^2/2m+V(q_j))+O(\delta t^2)|q_j\rangle \\ \end{align} \\ $$

$(5)$ should be possible since we're only interested in the limit $\delta t \to 0$. But this seems to be a rather sloppy argument, because in the following steps, before we take the limit $\delta t \to 0$, a Gaussian integral over $p$ is used. So we really need the exponential function and not just some approximation.

Even $(7)$ seems a bit sloppy. Shouldn't I have some limits on the $V(q)$ function to know that $V(\hat{q})|q_j\rangle = V(q_j)|q_j\rangle$?

Any hints?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You should use Trotter-Kato theorem. $\endgroup$
    – yuggib
    Oct 20, 2015 at 13:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (and of course you cannot, strictly speaking, do that for any potential, but only for the ones that are sufficiently regular) $\endgroup$
    – yuggib
    Oct 20, 2015 at 13:09

1 Answer 1


Your argument is essentially correct. In the usual physicist's derivation of the path integral, one uses the Zassenhaus formula to expand the exponential as $$ \mathrm{e}^{\delta t(p^2/(2m) + V(q))} = \mathrm{e}^{\delta t p^2/(2m)}\mathrm{e}^{\delta t V(q)}\mathrm{e}^{-\delta t^2 / 2[p^2,V(q)]}\dots$$ where all following terms are at least cubic in $\delta t$. Then, one discards all terms quadratic and higher in $\delta t$ since they vanish in the $\delta t \to 0$ limit.

Another way, where you don't need to "discard" terms by hand, is to use the Lie product formula from the beginning, i.e. to write $$ \mathrm{e}^{p^2/(2m) + V(q)} = \lim_{\delta t \to 0} \left(\mathrm{e}^{\delta t p^2 / (2m)}\mathrm{e}^{\delta t V(q)}\right)^{1/\delta t}$$

  • $\begingroup$ Okay, the Zassenhaus formula seems to be a better way to factorize the exponential. However, in the Gaussian integral there would still be this $\mathrm{e}^{-\delta t^2/2[p^2,V(q)]}$ term. How do I know I can do the Gaussian integral with this term? The Gaussian integral "happens" before we let $\delta t$ go to $0$. $\endgroup$
    – Bass
    Oct 20, 2015 at 13:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BastianTreichler: That's why I said "usual physicist's derivation". One just leaves out the $\delta t^2$ term before integrating although the limit has not yet been taken. If you want a rigorous derivation of the path integral this whole thing becomes more complicated: You need to continue analytically to Euclidean time and do things with the Wiener measure on the space of continuous paths. $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    Oct 20, 2015 at 13:24
  • $\begingroup$ OK that's great to know. Just in case you know of a QFT textbook where it's done rigorously, I'd be happy to know, thanks. $\endgroup$
    – Bass
    Oct 20, 2015 at 13:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BastianTreichler: Off the top of my head, it's in Quantum Physics by Glimm and Jaffe. Beware, that's no physics book ;) $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    Oct 20, 2015 at 13:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.