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
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Back
Top