Does Multi Path Integral Formulation Violate Special Relativity?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on whether the multi-path integral formulation of quantum mechanics violates special relativity by suggesting the existence of particles traveling faster than the speed of light (c). It is clarified that these faster-than-c paths do not represent physical particles but are rather mathematical constructs used to calculate probability amplitudes. The consensus is that while some paths in the formulation imply speeds greater than c, they do not allow for the transmission of information at such speeds, thus not violating special relativity. The distinction between physical and mathematical interpretations is emphasized, with faster-than-c paths deemed non-physical. Overall, the multi-path integral formulation does not contravene the principles of special relativity.
cragar
Messages
2,546
Reaction score
3
does the multi Path integral formulation violate special relativity ! do we get speeds faster than c.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
the particles with speed greater than 'c' are no physical particles they have no meaning at all, i think they are introduced just as a mathematical trick to make thing converge.
 
cragar said:
does the multi Path integral formulation violate special relativity ! do we get speeds faster than c.

What speed are you talking about? Group speed or phase speed?
 
feynmann said:
What speed are you talking about? Group speed or phase speed?
Neither. He's talking about path integrals, which add up the probability amplitudes associated with each classical path, and some of those paths correspond to speeds >c.

The answers to the questions in #1 are "no" and "yes". To "violate" SR you'd have to be able to send a message with a speed greater than c. You can't do it just by breaking a mathematical expression into pieces and interpreting some of the pieces as speeds >c.

zetafunction said:
the particles with speed greater than 'c' are no physical particles they have no meaning at all, i think they are introduced just as a mathematical trick to make thing converge.
They are no less and no more real than the ones with speed less than c, and this doesn't have anything to do with convergence.
 
i see
 

Thread 'Quantum Entanglement is a Kinematic Fact, not a Dynamical Effect'

Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
View full post »

Similar threads

Undergrad Can a Path Integral Formulation for Photons Start from a Massless Premise?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Lagrangian in the Path Integral
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
High School Speed of light with quantum path integrals
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad What do the authors of the paper mean here exactly by path integral?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Graduate Orthogonality of variations in Faddev-Popov method for path integral
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Understanding the Path Integral Formulation in Feynman's Theory
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Graduate Utility of path integral formulation of quantum mechanics
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Relation between phase space and path integral formulation?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Undergrad What Do Phase Space Path Integrals Compute?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Undergrad A Closer Look at the Randomness of Quantum Measurements in QED
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K