Obtaining NRQM from QFT: Issues, Folklores and Facts by Padmanabhan

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gentzen
  • Start date Start date
gentzen
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
1,233
Reaction score
929
Padmanabhan's paper "Obtaining the Non-relativistic Quantum Mechanics from Quantum Field Theory: Issues, Folklores and Facts" (https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.06605) is long (58 pages) and substantial, therefore it deserves its own thread.

Here is a recent discussion about Padmanabhan's paper in an unrelated thread:
bhobba said:
Most think that QFT in the non-relativistic limit reduces to ordinary QM. A careful analysis in the paper I posted shows the limit is not ordinary QM.
Demystifier said:
The non-relativistic limit of relativistic QFT is non-relativistic QFT. Non-relativistic QFT, also known as "second quantization", is widely used in condensed matter physics. In general, states in non-relativistic QFT do not have a definite number of particles. However, when non-relativistic QFT is applied to states with a definite number of particles, the resulting theory is equivalent to non-relativistic QM.

The Padmanabhan's point is that the NR limit of (relativistic) QFT is not merely NRQM of particles, but NRQM of particles and antiparticles. While this is correct, I find it a bit trivial. For instance, it means that the NR limit of QFT based on the Dirac equation is not merely NRQM of electrons, but NRQM of electrons and positrons. True, but so what? It doesn't make the usual NRQM of electrons wrong, it only means that a similar theory can also be applied to positrons. As long as we study processes in which the number of electrons and positrons does not change, there is no much difference between NRQM and NR limit of relativistic QFT. Of course, when we study processes in which the number of particles and/or antiparticles changes, then we must take into account the full relativistic QFT, nobody denies that.

So loosely speaking, it is still true that NR limit of relativistic QFT is NRQM, with the only caveat that the latter describes particles and antiparticles.
bhobba said:
He also points out that you get two Schrodinger's equations (one for the particle, and another for the antiparticle) in the Heisenberg picture, but not operating on the quantum state, but on the quantum field.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Peter Morgan
Physics news on Phys.org

Similar threads

  • · Replies 91 ·
4
Replies
91
Views
9K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 376 ·
13
Replies
376
Views
26K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K