A Thought experiment in relativistic quantum mechanics?

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
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...
Back
Top