Thought experiment in relativistic quantum mechanics?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a thought experiment in relativistic quantum mechanics, specifically addressing the implications of turning on an interaction potential and measuring energy in a space-like separated manner. Participants explore the paradoxes that arise from the timing of these events and how they relate to causality in the framework of relativistic quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a scenario involving a particle in superposition and the sudden activation of an interaction potential, leading to a change in average energy that is dependent on the measurement timing.
  • Another participant asserts that the paradox presented can be resolved by using quantum field theory (QFT), suggesting that first-quantization approaches are inadequate due to causality issues.
  • Some participants express the need for references to support claims about the inadequacy of first-quantization, with one participant referencing a specific book on relativistic quantum mechanics that does not address these issues.
  • Further discussion includes recommendations for alternative texts, such as Peskin and Schroeder, which may provide heuristic arguments relevant to the topic.
  • One participant proposes a modification to the inequality related to the sudden approximation, introducing a new expression that they have not encountered before, indicating a potential breakdown condition for quantum mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on how to resolve the paradox. There are competing views on the applicability of first-quantization versus quantum field theory, and the discussion remains open regarding the implications of the proposed modifications to the inequalities.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the definitions of the sudden approximation and the specific conditions under which the proposed inequalities hold. The discussion does not resolve the mathematical steps involved in the thought experiment.

Someone_physics
Messages
6
Reaction score
1
Background
---
Consider the following thought experiment in the setting of relativistic quantum mechanics (not QFT). I have a particle in superposition of the position basis:

H | \psi \rangle = E | \psi \rangle

Now I suddenly turn on an interaction potential H_{int} localized at r_o = (x_o,y_o,z_o) at time t_o:

$$
H_{int}(r) =
\begin{cases}
k & r \leq r_r' \\
0 & r > r'
\end{cases}
$$

where r is the radial coordinate and r' is the radius of the interaction of the potential with origin (x_o,y_o,z_o). By the logic of the sudden approximation out state has not had enough time to react. Thus the increase in average energy is:

\langle \Delta E \rangle = 4 \pi k \int_0^{r'} |\psi(r,\theta,\phi)|^2 d r

(assuming radial symmetry).

Now, let's say while the potential is turned on at t_0 I also perform a measurement of energy at time t_1 outside a region of space with a measuring apparatus at some other region (x_1,y_1,z_1). Using some geometry it can be shown I choose t_1 > t_0 + r'/c such that:

c^2(t_1 - t_0 - r'/c)^2 -(x_1 - x_0)^2 - (y_1 - y_0)^2 - (z_1 - z_0)^2 < 0

Hence, they are space-like separated. This means I could have one observer who first sees me turn on the potential H_{int} and measure a bump in energy \langle \Delta E \rangle but I could also have an observer who sees me first measure energy and then turn on the interaction potential.

Obviously the second observer will observe something different.

Question
---
How does relativistic quantum mechanics deal with this paradox?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It deals with it by using QFT. A 1st-quantization formalism is doomed to fail, precisely because of the causality considerations you just observed!
 
vanhees71 said:
It deals with it by using QFT. A 1st-quantization formalism is doomed to fail, precisely because of the causality considerations you just observed!

Can I have a reference for this? I've skimmed through a book of RQM (https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540674573) which makes not mention of this :/
 
It's because it's a book about "relativistic quantum mechanics". A nice heuristic argument is given in the beginning of the well-known textbook by Peskin and Schroeder (though in general I'd rather recommend Schwartz as a relativistic QFT intro book).
 
vanhees71 said:
It's because it's a book about "relativistic quantum mechanics". A nice heuristic argument is given in the beginning of the well-known textbook by Peskin and Schroeder (though in general I'd rather recommend Schwartz as a relativistic QFT intro book).

I'll have a look.

In a similar spirit to page 21 I can modify the last inequality by stating the time taken for the sudden approximation to be valid is

\tau = t_{1/2} - t_0 >> \frac{\hbar}{\langle \Delta E \rangle}

The time after the sudden approximation is measured is given by \Delta t_1 = t_1 - t_{1/2} then:c^2 (\Delta t_1 - \frac{\hbar}{ \langle \Delta E \rangle} - r'/c)^2 < (x_1 - x_0)^2 + (y_1 - y_0)^2 + (z_1 -z_0)^2

I haven't seen this expression before as a breakdown condition for QM
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K