Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T01:07:14.235Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Locality, Complex Numbers, and Relativistic Quantum Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Simon W. Saunders
Simon W. Saunders*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

What is relativistic quantum theory? How does it differ from non-relativistic quantum mechanics? Is there something more involved than the transition from the Galilean group to the Lorentz group?

These questions are evidently of great importance to the understanding of relativistic quantum theory (RQT), in particular to the distinction between the basic principles of quantum theory, and the characterization of a particular class of dynamical evolutions. Within non-relativistic quantum mechanics (NRQM) a reasonably precise response is possible (differences concern the number of degrees of freedom, the existence of internal symmetries, and the form of the Hamiltonian as a function of the canonical variables); what appears characteristic of RQT is the appearance of a dynamics of a qualitatively different character (involving the creation and annihilation of particles), involving new kinds of constraints (renormalization theory: anomalies). Nevertheless, it seems we must know how to pass from the inhomogeneous Galilean group (IHGG) to the Lorentz group (IHLG), if only because we have successfully constructed a RQT, surely, then, we know what it is that we hold invariant in this transition.

Type
Part X. Quantum Theory II
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1992 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1992 , 1992 , pp. 365 - 380
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

Such operators (properly speaking, bilinear forms) have received remarkably little attention in NRQM. What understanding we have is due to Wan and his collaborators (see Wan 1984 and references therein). The identity that holds between local qnumber densities, and (the second quantization of) 1-particle bilinear forms, as also the formal similarity between the former and c-number 1-particle probability densities (the configuration-space expectation-values of the latter), is a consequence of the identity of the classical field solutions with the 1-particle states. To formulate a comparable equivalence in the relativistic case one must interpret the negative-frequency solutions as states (related to this, one must interpret delta-functions in terms of the states). This is essentially what is provided by the Segal approach.

References

Ashtekar, A., and Magnon, A. (1975), “Quantum Fields in Curved Space-Times”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A346: 375-94.Google Scholar
Bacri, H. (1988), Localizability and Space in Quantum Physics. Lecture Notes in Physics, Volume 308. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bongaarts, P. (1972), “Linear Fields According to I.E. Segal”, in The Mathematics of Contemporary Physics, Streater, R. , (ed.). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cook, J. (1953), “The Mathematics of Second Quantization”, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 74: 222-45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feshbach, H. and Villars, F. (1958), “Elementary Relativistic Wave Mechanics of Spin 0 and Spin ½ Particles”, Reviews of Modern Physics 30: 24-45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, G. (1988), “Hyperplane-Dependent Quantized Fields and Lorentz Invariance”, in The Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Field Theory, Brown, H. and Harré, R. (eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Fleming, G. (1989), “Lorentz Invariant State Reduction, and Localization”, Philosophy of Science Association, 2:112-26.Google Scholar
Fleming, G. and Bennett, H. (1989), “Hyperplane Dependence in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics”, Foundations of Physics, 19: 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foldy, L. (1956), “Synthesis of Covariant Particle Equations”, Physical Review 102: 568-81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fröhlich, J. (1982), “On the Triviality of λφ4d Theories and the Approach to the Critical Point in d≥4 Dimensions”, Nuclear Physics B200: 281-96.Google Scholar
Goodman, R., and Segal, I.E. (1965), “Anti-locality of Certain Lorentz-Invariant Operators”, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 14:629-38.Google Scholar
Novozhilov, Y. (1975), Introduction to Elementary Particle Theory. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Saunders, S.W. (1988), “The Algebraic Approach to Quantum Field Theory”, in The Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Field Theory, Brown, H. and Harré, R. (eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Saunders, S.W., (1991), “The Negative Energy Sea”, in The Philosophy of Vacuum, Saunders, S.W. and Brown, H. (eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Schrödinger, E. (1927), “Der Energieimpulssatz der Materiewellen”, Annalen der Physik 82: 265-72. English translation inSchrödinger, E., Collected Papers on Wave Mechanics. London: Blackie and Son, 1928.Google Scholar
Segal, I.E. (1964), “Quantum Fields and Analysis in the Solution Manifolds of Differential Equations”, in Analysis in Function Space, Martin, W. and Segal, I.E. , (eds.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Segal, I.E. (1967), “Representations of the Canonical Commutation Relationships”, in Cargtsé Lectures in Theoretical Physics, F. Lurçat, (ed.). New York: Gordon and Breach.Google Scholar
Streater, R.F. (1988), “Why Should Anyone Want to Axiomatize Quantum Field Theory?”, in The Philosophy of Quantum Field Theory, Brown, H. , and Harré, R. , (eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Streater, R.F. and Wightman, A.S., (1964), PCT, Spin and Statistics, and All That. New York: W.A. Benjamin.Google Scholar
Teller, P., (1990), “Prolegomenon to a Proper Interpretation of Quantum Field Theory”, Philosophy of Science 57:594-618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wan, K.K. and Jackson, T.D., (1984), “On Local Observables in Quantum Mechanics”, Physics Letters 106 A: 219.Google Scholar
Weinberg, S. (1964), “Feynman Rules For Any Spin”, Physical Review D133: 1318-32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingard, R. (1992), “On the Interpretation of Quantum Field Theory”, Philosophy of Science, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Wigner, E.P. (1986), “Some Problems of Our Natural Sciences”, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 25: 467-76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, K.G. and Kogut, J., (1974), “The Renormalization Group and the e Expansion”, Physics Reports 12: 75-200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodhouse, N., (1980), Geometric Quantization. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar