JesseM
Science Advisor
- 8,519
- 17
(3) should say that in relativistic quantum mechanics we do not have a clear-cut procedure. In the non-quantum version of relativity we do--that's what he meant by "classical physics" here.aeon.rs said:From that quotation we can draw the conlusion that the solutions of the relativistic energy equation E2 = m2c4+p2c2 are as follows: (1) in classical physics we could keep the positive values separate from the negative ones, (2) in quantum mechanics the positive and negative values do not tend to separate neatly; each of the two roots has to be considered as a possibility, so even an “unphysical negative energy” has to be considered as a physical possibility (3) in relativity we do not have a clear cut procedure for ruling out negative square root.
My understanding is that the modern version of quantum field theory basically gets rid of the whole "Dirac Sea" idea, antiparticles are no longer viewed as "holes" but as particles in their own right. See this section of the wikipedia article, or this thread from physicsforums, or the last paragraph before "Free Space Solutions" in this google books result.aeon.rs said:Even Dirac when he took antiparticle to solve the problem, he obliged to introduce the concept of “the ocean of occupied negative energy states” which is now referred to as the Dirac Sea (the same book p. 624-625).