Register to reply 
Heuristic explanation of why quantum mechanics plus SR imply antiparticles 
Share this thread: 
#1
Dec2608, 11:49 AM

P: 156

I'm looking for a heuristic explanation of why quantum mechanics plus special relativity requires antiparticles, Does anybody want to take a crack at it? Or am I asking for the impossible?



#2
Dec2608, 02:16 PM

P: 194

Quantum mechanics plus special relativity does not necessarily require antiparticles: although it naturally accommodates them.
The straightforward generalization of quantum mechanics to include special relativity requires a modification of the Schrodinger equation. Modifying the Hamiltonian to reflect the energymomentum relation, [itex]E=\sqrt{m^2c^4+p^2c^2}[/itex], for relativistic particles, [tex]\hat{H}=\sqrt{\hbar^2c^2\nabla^2+m^2c^4}\,,[/tex] leads to a nonlocal theory due to the differential under the squareroot. Modifying the entire timedependent Schrodinger equation to reflect the squared energymomentum relation [itex]E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2[/itex] gives [tex]\hbar^2\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}\psi(\mathbf{x},t)=\hbar^2c^2\nabla^2+m^2c^4\psi(\mathbf{x},t)\,,[/tex] the KleinGordon equation. While this gives a local theory, it contains negativeenergy states in its spectrum. This is a problem since perturbations can cause transitions indefinitely into lower states (hence, this theory is unstable). The modern view is to abandon any attempt to directly modify the Schrodinger equation, and instead, to quantize a continuous field, [itex]\phi(\mathbf{x},t)[/itex], using ordinary quantum mechanics. The fields that are quantized, however, have dispersion relations of the same form as the squared energymomentum relation [itex]E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2[/itex], with the energy, [itex]E[/itex], identified as the frequency, [itex]\omega_p[/itex], of propagating plane waves. The resulting Schrodinger equation, has no negative energy solutions, and is local. There are, however, negative frequency solutions associated with the field's dispersion relations. In the case that a realvalued field is quantized, negative and positive frequency solutions are identified, and there are no antiparticles. In the case that a complexvalued field is quantized, negative and positive frequency solutions are the particle and antiparticle solutions, respectively. 


#3
Dec2608, 04:23 PM

P: 242

My understanding from articles and discussions of about a year ago is that (at least most) local theories require hidden variables, and that a large class of hiddenvariable theories has meanwhile been disproven, that entanglement correlations are considered to demonstrate nonlocal correlations, even though this question is still somewhat open. "Nonlocal correlations" means that the effects are symmetric from each particles point of view, and therefore not usable for communication, which would require an asymmetric effect. 


#4
Dec2608, 06:15 PM

P: 194

Heuristic explanation of why quantum mechanics plus SR imply antiparticles
I'm sorry about the confusion:
By local I meant microcausal. That is, the commutators of observables (built out of field operators) with a spacelike separation vanish. This ensures that two measurements with a spacelike separation do not interfere with each other (no information propagates faster than the speed of light). However, observables with spacelike separations may still be correlated giving rise to entanglement. 


#5
Dec2608, 08:02 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 16,450

I think it depends on what you mean by "heuristic"  if it means "I want to understand the theory without understanding the mathematics behind it", the answer is no. If you're willing to live with an idea that's not too wrong, it's because the relationship between energy, momentum and mass in SR is quadratic, and just as you get two solutions to the quadratic equation, you get two particles of identical mass.



Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Relativistic quantum field theory:antiparticles!  Quantum Physics  33  
Possible Explanation for Quantum Mechanics?  Quantum Physics  2  
Do equivalent quantum states imply entanglement?  Quantum Physics  3  
Does equilibrium imply max. entropy in statistical mechanics?  Classical Physics  25  
Quantum explanation of tunnel diode  General Physics  0 