PMA Publisher: Published from the Principia Machina source

2026-10-15T19:30:22Z

Published from the Principia Machina source

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:30, 15 October 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:Sum over histories}}		{{DISPLAYTITLE:Sum over histories}}
	{{Technical\|Hamilton's principle/Applications/The Feynman path integral}}		{{Technical\|Hamilton's principle/Applications/The Feynman path integral}}
			{{Hamilton's principle map}}

	This page explains why the whole idea works, according to quantum mechanics. It		This page explains why the whole idea works, according to quantum mechanics. It

BFP Rauch: Pipe internal links so cross-references read as titles, not paths

2026-09-16T04:58:39Z

Pipe internal links so cross-references read as titles, not paths

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:58, 16 September 2026
Line 67:		Line 67:
	Near a path where the action is '''stationary''', nudging the path barely changes		Near a path where the action is '''stationary''', nudging the path barely changes
	the action. That was the definition, from		the action. That was the definition, from
	[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Comparing paths]].		[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Comparing paths\|Comparing paths]].

	Barely changing the action means barely rotating the clock hand. So all those		Barely changing the action means barely rotating the clock hand. So all those
Line 131:		Line 131:

	This is the end of the argument. To see how the rule was found in the first place,		This is the end of the argument. To see how the rule was found in the first place,
	start at [[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Comparing paths]]. To see why it fails		start at [[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Comparing paths\|Comparing paths]]. To see why it fails
	to mean "least", go to		to mean "least", go to
	[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Where the minimum fails]].		[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Where the minimum fails\|Where the minimum fails]].

BFP Rauch: Add DISPLAYTITLE: title the page by its section rather than its path

2026-09-16T04:46:54Z

Add DISPLAYTITLE: title the page by its section rather than its path

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:46, 16 September 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{DISPLAYTITLE:Sum over histories}}
	{{Technical\|Hamilton's principle/Applications/The Feynman path integral}}		{{Technical\|Hamilton's principle/Applications/The Feynman path integral}}

Line 133:		Line 134:
	to mean "least", go to		to mean "least", go to
	[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Where the minimum fails]].		[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Where the minimum fails]].

BFP Rauch: 1 revision imported

2026-09-09T05:05:16Z

1 revision imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 05:05, 9 September 2026
(No difference)

hamiltons-principle>HPVBuild: Initial import of B-22

2026-09-08T12:00:00Z

Initial import of B-22

New page

{{Technical|Hamilton's principle/Applications/The Feynman path integral}}

This page explains why the whole idea works, according to quantum mechanics. It
uses no mathematics. The technical page it goes with is named above.

== The question nobody could answer ==

[[File:OPL-HP-F-15.png|thumb|right|400px|Phases adding near the stationary path and cancelling elsewhere.]]

The volume has spent a long time on a rule: nature picks the path where the action
is stationary.

The rule works. It reproduces Newton's laws, it explains conservation, it builds
electromagnetism and gravity.

But it is a strange rule to believe. How would a ball know? To pick the path where
the action is stationary, something has to compare all the paths. A ball leaving
your hand does not appear to survey the alternatives.

For three centuries the honest answer was that nature does behave this way, and
nobody knew why. Some people found the rule so odd that they suspected purpose
behind it. Maupertuis, who proposed an early version in 1744, thought it showed
the economy of a wise creator.

The actual answer arrived in 1948, and it is stranger than the puzzle.

== Every path happens ==

The quantum answer is that the ball does not pick a path.

'''It takes all of them.'''

Every path from start to finish contributes. The sensible ones and the ridiculous
ones. The straight one, the one that loops via the ceiling, the one that goes to
the Moon and comes back in time for tea. All of them.

And they all contribute '''equally strongly'''. The classical path is not
weighted more heavily. It is not marked out. Nothing in the rule mentions it.

What differs between paths is not strength but '''timing'''.

== Timing and cancellation ==

Picture each path as carrying a tiny clock hand. As the path is traversed the hand
rotates. How far it rotates depends on the action of that path — the same quantity
the volume has been discussing all along.

At the end, add up all the hands, arrow to arrow. The size of the total tells you
how likely the journey is.

Now think about what happens when you add up an enormous number of arrows pointing
in random directions. They cancel. Point them every which way and the total is
close to nothing.

For anything bigger than an atom, the action is huge compared with the natural
quantum unit. So a tiny change of path spins the clock hand round many times over.
Neighbouring paths point in wildly different directions.

'''They cancel.''' Almost every path contributes nothing, not because it is
forbidden, but because a nearby path is pointing the opposite way.

== Except in one place ==

There is one exception, and it is the whole point.

Near a path where the action is '''stationary''', nudging the path barely changes
the action. That was the definition, from
[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Comparing paths]].

Barely changing the action means barely rotating the clock hand. So all those
paths point in nearly the '''same''' direction.

Arrows pointing the same way do not cancel. They add.

So the total is dominated by paths near the stationary one. Everything else
destroys itself. What survives is what we call the classical path.

== What this changes ==

The rule has not been replaced. It has been explained, and the explanation inverts
it.

Before: nature picks the path where the action is stationary.

After: nature does not pick anything. It does everything at once, and stationary
action is simply the place where an enormous cancellation fails to happen.

Hamilton's principle is not a law about nature's preferences. It is a fact about
adding up a very large number of things that mostly cancel.

That is why the ball does not need to know. There is no survey and no choice. What
looks like selection is the residue left over after interference.

== It settles the word "least" ==

This volume has insisted throughout that the right word is '''stationary''', not
'''least'''. The quantum picture confirms it, and from an unexpected angle.

For the arrows to add up rather than cancel, all that is needed is that the action
'''barely changes''' near the path. It makes no difference whether the action is
smallest there, largest there, or neither.

A maximum reinforces exactly as well as a minimum does.

So the light path that takes the '''longest''' time, mentioned earlier in the
volume, is a genuine path for exactly the same reason as any other. Its arrows add
up. Nothing about the physics prefers small numbers.

Anyone who says "least action" is describing a special case and calling it the
rule.

== Where the classical picture fails ==

The cancellation argument depended on the action being large compared with the
quantum unit. For everyday objects it is — by a factor with something like
twenty-seven zeros.

For an electron it is not. The cancellation is then incomplete, other paths
survive, and the object stops having a single trajectory in any useful sense.

That is not a failure of measurement or a gap in our knowledge. The electron
really does go several ways, and the ways interfere. Fire electrons at a screen
with two slits and you get a pattern that only makes sense if each electron went
through both.

So classical mechanics is not wrong. It is what quantum mechanics looks like when
the numbers are large enough for almost everything to cancel.

== Where to go next ==

This is the end of the argument. To see how the rule was found in the first place,
start at [[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Comparing paths]]. To see why it fails
to mean "least", go to
[[Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Where the minimum fails]].

Hamilton's principle/Explainers/Sum over histories - Revision history

PMA Publisher: Published from the Principia Machina source

BFP Rauch: Pipe internal links so cross-references read as titles, not paths

BFP Rauch: Add DISPLAYTITLE: title the page by its section rather than its path

BFP Rauch: 1 revision imported

hamiltons-principle>HPVBuild: Initial import of B-22