Is quantum field theory really lorentz invariant?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the compatibility of quantum field theory (QFT) with Lorentz invariance, particularly in relation to nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. Participants express concerns about the wavefunction collapse in interpretations like Copenhagen and Bohmian mechanics, arguing that these processes violate Lorentz invariance due to their nonlocality. Some suggest that while measurement is inherently non-covariant, the dynamics of quantum systems can still be formulated to respect Lorentz invariance. The conversation also touches on the many-worlds interpretation, questioning its ability to resolve these issues. Overall, the thread highlights ongoing debates about the foundational aspects of quantum mechanics and their implications for relativity.
  • #31
Demystifier said:
By the way, thanks for not writing my name as "Nicolic", which for some reason many people do. :-)

Sorry for that. I know the pain.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
By the way, if you write "Nicolic" in the google, the first thing it writes is:
"Did you mean: Nikolic"
 
  • #33
Sam_Goldberg said:
Specifically, at low energies it appears as if the wavefunction on 4n dimensional configuration space has a nonzero value only when the time coordinates for all the particles are equal, and I'm still not clear how that mathematically arises.

Well, whatever it is, it must be the case that in the limit for c goes to infinity (or small energies) the wave function for a single particle system satisfies

[tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\int{|\psi(x,t)|^2 d^3x}\rightarrow 0[/tex]

so that we can normalize the integral over space and use the wave-function-squared as a probability density at each time t, so that time reduces to a parameter.

For multiple particles, you would have to express the wave-function in a many-time formulation, as Demystifier says, so that the wave-function would represent the probability amplitude of observing the first particle at x1,t1, the second particle at x2,t2, etc. The non-relativistic limit would be letting c go to infinity and setting t1 = t2 = ... = tn = t. But the wave-function is not necessarily zero if the times are unequal. It's just that you can only restore the usual time-parametrized Schrodinger picture by setting them equal.

I'm glossing over some fine points, but that is essence of it .
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 182 ·
7
Replies
182
Views
14K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K