In reading about Feynmans functional aproach to QM it is obvious that in summing over all paths we also consider paths with v>c. This troubles me because it is possible to set a Lagrangian and a time interval for wich the non-relativistic classical path has the particle travelling at v>c. Take for instance the lagrangian of the free fall. Taking sufficiently far apart endpoints it is clear that we can have the particle arriving at v>c.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I have tried bypassing this problem by using the relativistic action and some how shortening the spatial integration limits in each time slice so as to not sum over supraluminal paths, but have been unsuccessful. Any solution to this problem?

I am aware of possible answers like " oh, don't worry about those paths, they cancell out". Please if you are tempted to say this, add a non-heuristic proof to your assertion.

Happy New Year!

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Feynman's formulation is manifestly non-relativistic

Loading...

Similar Threads for Feynman's formulation manifestly | Date |
---|---|

A How to relate the expansion term to Feynman diagrams | Sunday at 10:05 PM |

A Why do Feynman rules work? | Saturday at 5:31 AM |

I Virtual particles in Feynman diagrams | Mar 16, 2018 |

I Calculating the fine structure constant in Feynman diagrams | Mar 16, 2018 |

Does Hamilton's principle follow from the Feynman formulation of QM? | Jun 1, 2012 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**