# Photons, particles and wavepackets

You cannot just state the usual axioms of RELATIVISTIC QFT and then derive all the rules of nonrelativistic QM as an approximation.
You say this. But have you tried hard enough ? I can neither confirm nor refute your claim because there would have to be a no-go theorem or a proof of said NR limit for that.

Demystifier
Science Advisor
Gold Member
You say this. But have you tried hard enough ? I can neither confirm nor refute your claim because there would have to be a no-go theorem or a proof of said NR limit for that.
The argument (not a proof) is actually simple. NR QM contains a NR position operator. It should be a NR limit of the relativistic position operator. However, the latter does not seem to exist. I am not sure if there is a rigorous proof that it does not exist, but I know that the most obvious attempts do not really work, for one reason or another.

On the other hand, in my paper I show that the axioms of nonrelativistic Bohmian mechanics CAN be derived as an approximation of the axioms of relativistic Bohmian mechanics (because the axioms of Bohmian mechanics are not based on operators describing observables). In a sense, this makes Bohmian mechanics more powerfull than the orthodox approach.

Last edited:
The argument (not a proof) is actually simple. NR QM contains a NR position operator. It should be a NR limit of the relativistic position operator. However, the latter does not seem to exist. I am not sure if there is a rigorous proof that it does not exist, but I know that the most obvious attempts do not really work, for one reason or another.
You're just shifting the problem from the NR limit to the position operator. The fact that you can't show it doesn't mean a proof doesn't exist.

On the other hand, in my paper I show that the axioms of nonrelativistic Bohmian mechanics CAN be derived as an approximation of the axioms of relativistic Bohmian mechanics (because the axioms of Bohmian mechanics are not based on operators describing observables).
What does it help to prove well known physical theory A from speculation B ? Unless you haven't got a Bohmian equivalent to QFT there is no point in doing that.