Negative energy solutions - Dirac equation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the treatment of negative energy solutions in the context of the Dirac equation, exploring the implications of combining relativity with quantum mechanics. Participants examine why negative energy solutions are discarded in classical relativity but retained in quantum theory, delving into concepts such as the Dirac sea and the requirements of quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why negative energy solutions are discarded in relativity but retained when integrating quantum theory, suggesting a connection to quantum mechanics.
  • One participant proposes that in systems like the hydrogen atom, an electron could theoretically emit a high-energy photon and drop to a negative energy level, raising concerns about the implications of such behavior.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of the Dirac sea, explaining that all negative energy levels are filled, preventing electrons from dropping into them due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
  • It is noted that the Dirac and Klein-Gordon equations are now viewed as applicable to quantum fields rather than just probability amplitudes.
  • One participant emphasizes the necessity of including negative energy solutions in quantum mechanics to maintain a complete set of states, which inherently includes unwanted states.
  • Another participant discusses the requirement for fields in quantum theory to account for both particles and antiparticles, explaining the need for commutation or anti-commutation relations in the context of quantum fields.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the treatment of negative energy solutions, with some advocating for their inclusion in quantum mechanics while others highlight the traditional exclusion in relativity. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications and necessity of these solutions.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific texts and concepts, such as the Dirac sea and the commutation relations required in quantum field theory, indicating a reliance on particular definitions and frameworks that may not be universally accepted.

hendriko373
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation" , which itself is based upon the relativistic energy-momentum relation [tex]E^2 = p^2 + m^2[/tex] (natural units). And here comes my question then:

Why do we throw away the negative energy solutions in relativity but do we keep them when we combine it with quantum theory. Clearly this must have got something to do with the quantum part, but with what?

Thanks, Hendrik
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The original thinking was something like this. In (for example) the hydrogen atom, the electron can emit a photon of definite energy, and drop to a lower energy level. So, what would stop an electron from emiting a high-energy photon and dropping to a negative energy level? And then keep going down and down?

Dirac's answer was the Dirac sea: all those energy levels are already filled, and so the electron cannot drop into them, by Pauil exclusion.

This doesn't work for bosons, though.

The modern viewpoint is that both the Dirac and Klein-Gordon equations apply to quantum fields rather than to probability amplitudes.
 
hendriko373 said:
Why do we throw away the negative energy solutions in relativity but do we keep them when we combine it with quantum theory. Clearly this must have got something to do with the quantum part, but with what?


We cannot simply throw away the negative energy solutions as we are required by QM to work with a complete set of states, and this set inevitably includes the unwanted states.


regards

sam
 
φ(x) and φ(y) must commute or anti-commute …

Hi Hendrik! :smile:
hendriko373 said:
Why do we throw away the negative energy solutions in relativity but do we keep them when we combine it with quantum theory. Clearly this must have got something to do with the quantum part, but with what?
samalkhaiat said:
[We cannot simply throw away the negative energy solutions as we are required by QM to work with a complete set of states, and this set inevitably includes the unwanted states.

In non-quantum relativity, to describe a particle with a particular velocity (state), we just describe … well … that particle! … no other particles, and certainly no anti-particles.

But the whole basis of quantum theory is that a particle with a particular velocity (state) must be described by a field φ(x) which

i] is an integral (or "average") over the creation operators of particles with all possible velocities (ie, as samalkhaiat :smile: says, a "complete set of states"), and

ii] has φ(x) and φ(y) commuting (or anti-commuting) for any x and y whose separation is space-like.

Unfortunately, if that "complete set" means only particles, then (see, for example, p.202 of Weinberg's QTF, Vol I) condition ii] cannot work, and the only way to make it work is by using not only the creation operators of all possible particles, but also the annihilation operators of all possible anti-particles. :smile:

Why annihilation instead of creation? Mostly for "dimensional" reasons, but also because creating things with positive energy sort-of goes with destroying things with negative energy!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K