Is quantum field theory really lorentz invariant?

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
32 replies · 11K views
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
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 Schrödinger picture by setting them equal.

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