I Relativistic Quantum Mechanics & Localized Particles

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the flaws of relativistic quantum mechanics (QM) for single particles, particularly the issue of particles potentially being found outside the light cone, which raises questions about the localization of particles. It is argued that in relativistic scenarios, one should consider multi-particle states and that the concept of localized particles does not apply, as it is the measurements represented by field operators that are localized. Participants debate whether it is possible to predict particle trajectories, concluding that while local measurements can indicate particle presence, they do not provide definitive positions. The conversation also touches on the implications of Lorentz invariance on particle localization, suggesting that the particle concept in quantum field theory (QFT) is only approximate and not exact. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the complexities of understanding particle localization within the framework of relativistic quantum mechanics and QFT.
  • #51
A. Neumaier said:
Only in nonrelativistic quantum field theory.
The equivalence is shown using 4-D delta functions, so it works in relativistic QFT.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
vanhees71 said:
Feynman diagrams depicting S-matrix elements lead to the same result in both the space-time and the energy-momentum representation. The corresponding (amputated) time-ordered ##N##-point Green's functions are Fourier transforms of each other.
But if you take 4D Fourier transforms then the N-point Green's functions get N times, and can for N>2 no longer be interpreted in terms of inner products of multiparticle states (where there is one time only but multiple space coordinates).
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #53
A. Neumaier said:
But if you take 4D Fourier transforms then the N-point Green's functions get N times, and can for N>2 no longer be interpreted in terms of inner products of multiparticle states (where there is one time only but multiple space coordinates).
Expand it all out in terms of propagators and point vertices and the equivalence becomes trivial.
 
  • #54
Michael Price said:
Expand it all out in terms of propagators and point vertices and the equivalence becomes trivial.
I don't complain about the equivalence but about the interpretation that you give in post #38.
Applying two field operators gives a state with two time variables.
 
  • #55
A. Neumaier said:
I don't complain about the equivalence but about the interpretation that you give in post #38.
Applying two field operators gives a state with two time variables.
Representing creation at X and destruction at Y. Or vice versa for the antiparticle.
 
  • #56
Michael Price said:
Representing creation at X and destruction at Y. Or vice versa for the antiparticle.
And what does ##\phi(x)\phi(y)\phi(z)|vac\rangle## with 4D ##x,y,z## represent? Surely not an ordinary wave function ket, which would be ##|x,y,z\rangle## with 3D position vectors ##x,y,z##.
 
  • #57
A. Neumaier said:
And what does ##\phi(x)\phi(y)\phi(z)|vac\rangle## with 4D ##x,y,z## represent? Surely not an ordinary wave function ket, which would be ##|x,y,z\rangle## with 3D position vectors ##x,y,z##.

Is the whole idea of particle positions muddled by the lost simultaneity in relativistic quantum mechanics? As in, how do we make sense of unitary time evolution when particle positions defined at the same times are boosted to different times?
 
  • #58
HomogenousCow said:
Is the whole idea of particle positions muddled by the lost simultaneity in relativistic quantum mechanics?
Not only that of particle positions but that of more than one particle.

Even in classical relativity, there is no good relativistic multiparticle theory: see
  • Currie, Jordan and Sudarshan, Relativistic Invariance and Hamiltonian Theories of Interacting Particles, Reviews of Modern Physics 35 (1963), 350.
 
  • #59
A. Neumaier said:
Not only that of particle positions but that of more than one particle.

Even in classical relativity, there is no good relativistic multiparticle theory: see
  • Currie, Jordan and Sudarshan, Relativistic Invariance and Hamiltonian Theories of Interacting Particles, Reviews of Modern Physics 35 (1963), 350.

Wasn’t there a recent textbook on classical electrodynamics where the problem of charged point particles interacting via dynamical fields was given a satisfactory treatment?
 
  • #60
HomogenousCow said:
Wasn’t there a recent textbook on classical electrodynamics where the problem of charged point particles interacting via dynamical fields was given a satisfactory treatment?
To my knowledge only the problem of a single point particle in a field is tractable, not that of several...
 
  • #61
WWCY said:
He said that this was down to the fact that we should be considering multi-particle states in relativistic situation, before introducing Fock-space states.

There have been already a lot of answers, I only want to quote the introduction of "quantum electrodynamics" by Beretetskii-Lifshitz-Pitaevskii
 

Attachments

  • landau.png
    landau.png
    88.2 KB · Views: 257
  • Like
Likes Michael Price, vanhees71 and WWCY
  • #62
A. Neumaier said:
But if you take 4D Fourier transforms then the N-point Green's functions get N times, and can for N>2 no longer be interpreted in terms of inner products of multiparticle states (where there is one time only but multiple space coordinates).
Of course not. The QFT formalism automatically takes care of the Bose/Fermi (anti-)symmetrization.
 
  • Like
Likes Michael Price