I Question about the Feynmann-Stuckelberg interpretation

  • Thread starter Thread starter madScientist404
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Interpretation
Click For Summary
The Feynman-Stuckelberg interpretation of the Dirac equation suggests that negative energy solutions can be viewed as either particles traveling backward in time or as positive energy antiparticles moving forward. The discussion emphasizes that the second interpretation is preferred because it maintains causality, avoiding the paradoxes associated with backward time travel. Key mathematical principles, such as the irreducible representations of the Poincare group and the requirement for locality and stability, necessitate the superposition of positive and negative frequency modes to achieve a causal framework in quantum field theory. The conclusions drawn from this framework, including the relationship between spin and statistics, are experimentally validated. The reference to Weinberg's work highlights the established nature of these interpretations in the field.
madScientist404
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
the Feynmann-Stuckelberg interpretation: a negative energy solution of the Dirac equation is interpreted (1) as a negative energy particle traveling backwards in time or (2) as a positive energy anti-particle going forwards in time.
However, if a positron and an electron annihilate each other a photon is sent out.
A photon does not experience time. Therefore doesn't interpretation (1) makes a lot more sense as time is also "cancelled out" ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's of course (2). That's the "trick"! Instead of a weird esoteric interpretation of something "traveling backward in time", contradicting the causality postulate underlying all of physics you have a causal interpretation of the negative-frequency modes of free relativistic fields. The important point is that the trick works for quantum fields, and here it's mathematically extremely elegant:

(a) you look for the irreducible ray representations of the proper orthochronous Poincare group (in fact boiling down to the proper unitary representations of that group, because it has no non-trivial central charges)

(b) you assume locality/microcausality as well as stability (i.e., that the Hamiltonian is bounded from below and there is thus a ground state)

(c) this inevitably leads to the necessity to superimpose both positive- and negative-frequency modes in a specific way to get local quantum fields, realizing microcausality of local observables and local realizations of the Poincare group.

(d) Quantization implies that the operator-valued coefficients in the mode decomposition in front of positive (negative) frequency modes must interpreted as annihilation (creation) operators to have a causal interpretation.

(e) Taking all this together you end up with the profound very general properties of local relativistic QFT: physically interpretable are the representations with ##m^2>0## and ##m^2=0## (massive and massless particles; tachyons make trouble, at least whenever you try to make them interacting); the connection between spin and statistics: half-integer-spin fields have to quantized as fermions and integer-spin fields as bosons; the discrete operation CPT (charge conjugation, space reflection, time reversal) is necessarily a symmetry. All of these conclusions are experimentally confirmed at high accuracy (including the violation of P, T, CP, etc. symmetries by the weak interaction).

You find all this described in a very concise way in Weinberg, Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol. 1.
 
Thank you very much for this answer. I was wondering how esoteric interpretation (1) actually is. But apparently (1) has already been falsified. I will take a look at Weinberg.
 
Last edited:
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K