How to fix Relativistic QM so it's consistent?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mad mathematician
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the challenges and inconsistencies in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (RQM), particularly in relation to the concept of negative energy and the definition of probability density for particles. Participants explore various theoretical frameworks, including Quantum Field Theory (QFT) and Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (TIQM), while questioning the implications of these issues on the consistency of RQM.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about attempts to resurrect RQM and the issues that arise, including the problematic nature of negative energies.
  • There is a discussion on how QFT circumvents the issue of defining probability density by focusing on fields rather than particles.
  • Some participants argue that the absolute value squared of the wave function serves as a probability density, while others contend that this fails in a relativistic context, particularly with the Klein-Gordon equation.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of negative energy, suggesting it allows for the creation of particles from nothing without violating energy conservation.
  • One participant introduces the TIQM perspective, proposing a model where quantum events are seen as transactions between emitters and absorbers, which could provide a physical basis for the Born rule.
  • Discussions also touch on the geometric interpretation of quantum mechanics and how it relates to the formalism of RQM.
  • Some participants express confusion or disagreement regarding the relevance of certain interpretations and their implications for RQM.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the issues discussed. There are multiple competing views regarding the interpretation of negative energy, the definition of probability density, and the implications of various theoretical frameworks on the consistency of RQM.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the current understanding of RQM, particularly regarding the treatment of negative energy and the conservation of probability in relativistic contexts. There are unresolved mathematical steps and varying interpretations of foundational concepts.

  • #31
@ChrisF
We appreciate the respect and the caution. We do not provide any form of pre publication support here. It needs to be published in the professional scientific literature before it can be discussed here.
 
Last edited:
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba, PeterDonis and berkeman

Similar threads

Graduate Consistency of Relativistic QM
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
Graduate Why is matter-free gravity not ultraviolet finite?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Graduate Dasgupta et al., What is the alternative to a unique dS vacua?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Graduate Fine structure and fixed points
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
6K
Graduate Where can we go with Relational QM?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
Graduate Can the double slit experiment distinguish between QM interpretations?
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
Graduate Hardy's approach to quantum gravity and QM interpretation
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
9K
Graduate Sum over backgrounds in String Theory
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Graduate Higgs inflation and quadratic gravity
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Graduate Twistors and celestial holography
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K