paweld
Dec10-10, 06:32 AM
I wonder whether Dirac explanation of paradox of negative energy solutions
of his equation is viable. Of course this paradox is absent in QFT but if
we treat Dirac equation as an equation for wave function of electron
the negative energy solution are a puzzle. Acording to Dirac we don't
observe negative energy particles because all states with negative energy are
occupied. What we observe is a "hole in negative energy see". However
for stability of vaccum we have to additionally assume that the described particles
are fermions (states with some electrons are stable as all states with lower energy
are occupied and two electrons cannot occupy the same state). If we consider
the Klein-Gordon equation describing scalar particles (bosons) the Dirac's explanation
doesn't work. So in my opinion it's impossible to consistently explain the negative
energy solutions of relativistic wave equations not using formalism of QFT
(the filed then becomes an operator which destroys and creates particles).
So Dirac "hole in a see" argument has only historical meaning.
Am I right?
of his equation is viable. Of course this paradox is absent in QFT but if
we treat Dirac equation as an equation for wave function of electron
the negative energy solution are a puzzle. Acording to Dirac we don't
observe negative energy particles because all states with negative energy are
occupied. What we observe is a "hole in negative energy see". However
for stability of vaccum we have to additionally assume that the described particles
are fermions (states with some electrons are stable as all states with lower energy
are occupied and two electrons cannot occupy the same state). If we consider
the Klein-Gordon equation describing scalar particles (bosons) the Dirac's explanation
doesn't work. So in my opinion it's impossible to consistently explain the negative
energy solutions of relativistic wave equations not using formalism of QFT
(the filed then becomes an operator which destroys and creates particles).
So Dirac "hole in a see" argument has only historical meaning.
Am I right?