Up to this point, our study of quantum mechanics has concerned itself with the behaviour of particles that inhabit a Galilean spacetime. For many purposes, in atomic, molecular and condensed matter physics, this theory is quite adequate. We saw in earlier chapters, however, that our actual spacetime has a structure which is much closer to that of the Minkowski spacetime of special relativity and that more general structures must be considered when gravitational phenomena are significant. From a purely theoretical point of view, it is therefore important to formulate quantum theory in a way which is consistent with these more general spacetimes. The benefits of constructing a relativistic quantum theory actually go far beyond the aesthetic satisfaction of making our geometrical and quantummechanical reasoning compatible. For one thing, we shall discover that the relativistic theory provides a deeper understanding of spin and the distinction between fermions and bosons, which in the non-relativistic theory appear simply as facts of life that we must strive to accommodate. Also, of course, there are many situations in which relativistic effects become observable, for which nonrelativistic theory provides no explanation. The most obvious are high-energy scattering experiments, in which particles acquire kinetic energies comparable with or greater than their rest energies mc2, and the correct 4-momentum (3.34) must be used. There are, however, more subtle effects, such as the spin-orbit coupling that is essential for interpreting atomic spectra, which are also of relativistic origin.
Up to this point, our study of quantum mechanics has concerned itself with the behaviour of particles that inhabit a Galilean spacetime. For many purposes, in atomic, molecular and condensed matter physics, this theory is quite adequate. We saw in earlier chapters, however, that our actual spacetime has a structure which is much closer to that of the Minkowski spacetime of special relativity and that more general structures must be considered when gravitational phenomena are significant. From a purely theoretical point of view, it is therefore important to formulate quantum theory in a way which is consistent with these more general spacetimes. The benefits of constructing a relativistic quantum theory actually go far beyond the aesthetic satisfaction of making our geometrical and quantummechanical reasoning compatible. For one thing, we shall discover that the relativistic theory provides a deeper understanding of spin and the distinction between fermions and bosons, which in the non-relativistic theory appear simply as facts of life that we must strive to accommodate. Also, of course, there are many situations in which relativistic effects become observable, for which nonrelativistic theory provides no explanation. The most obvious are high-energy scattering experiments, in which particles acquire kinetic energies comparable with or greater than their rest energies mc2, and the correct 4-momentum (3.34) must be used. There are, however, more subtle effects, such as the spin-orbit coupling that is essential for interpreting atomic spectra, which are also of relativistic origin.
Up to this point, our study of quantum mechanics has concerned itself with the behaviour of particles that inhabit a Galilean spacetime. For many purposes, in atomic, molecular and condensed matter physics, this theory is quite adequate. We saw in earlier chapters, however, that our actual spacetime has a structure which is much closer to that of the Minkowski spacetime of special relativity and that more general structures must be considered when gravitational phenomena are signicant. From a purely theoretical point of view, it is therefore important to formulate quantum theory in a way which is consistent with these more general spacetimes. The benets of constructing a relativistic quantum theory actually go far beyond the aesthetic satisfaction of making our geometrical and quantum-mechanical reasoning compatible. For one thing, we shall discover that the relativistic theory provides a deeper understanding of spin and the distinction between fermions and bosons, which in the non-relativistic theory appear simply as facts of life that we must strive to accommodate. Also, of course, there are many situations in which relativistic eects become observable, for which non-relativistic theory provides no explanation. The most obvious are high-energy scattering experiments, in which particles acquire kinetic energies comparable with or greater than their rest energies mc2, and the correct 4-momentum (3.33) must be used. There are, however, more subtle eects, such as the spin-orbit coupling that is essential for interpreting atomic spectra, which are also of relativistic origin.
Much of the remainder of this book will concern itself with those aspects of theoretical physics which seek to understand the nature of matter. Such understanding as we have has mainly been achieved by probing the structure of successively smaller constituents and, at least on the face of things, the regions of space and time we need to consider are far too small for spacetime curvature to be of any significance. Many of our considerations will therefore be restricted to Minkowski or, as in the present chapter, Galilean spacetime. Paradoxically, however, it seems that gravity and the structure of space and time may have a vital role to play in our understanding of matter on the very smallest scales, and we shall see something of the ways in which this comes about in later chapters.
The aim of relativistic quantum mechanics is to describe the finer details of the structure of atoms and molecules, where relativistic effects become nonnegligible. It is a sort of intermediate realm, between the familiar nonrelativistic quantum mechanics and fully relativistic quantum field theory, and thus it lacks the simplicity and elegance of both. Yet it is a necessary tool, mostly for quantum chemists. Pilkuhn's book offers to this audience an up-to-date survey of these methods, which is quite welcome since most previous textbooks are at least ten years old. The point of view of the author is to start immediately in the relativistic domain, following the lead of Maxwell's equations rather than classical mechanics, and thus to treat the nonrelativistic version as an approximation. Thus Chapter 1 takes off from Maxwell's equations (in the noncovariant Coulomb gauge) and gradually derives the basic aspects of Quantum Mechanics in a rather pedestrian way (states and observables, Hilbert space, operators, quantum measurement, scattering,. Chapter 2 starts with the Lorentz transformations, then continues with the Pauli spin equation and the Dirac equation and some of their applications (notably the hydrogen atom). Chapter 3 is entitled `Quantum fields and particles', but falls short of treating quantum field theory properly: only creation/annihilation operators are considered, for a particle in a box. The emphasis is on two-electron states (the Pauli principle, the Foldy--Wouthuysen elimination of small components of Dirac spinors, Breit projection operators. Chapter 4 is devoted to scattering theory and the description of relativistic bound states. Chapter 5, finally, covers hyperfine interactions and radiative corrections. As we said above, relativistic quantum mechanics is by nature limited in scope and rather inelegant and Pilkuhn's book is no exception. The notation is often heavy (mostly noncovariant) and the mathematical level rather low. The central topic is the description of atoms and molecules, including relativistic effects. The author fulfils this program in a reasonable way and offers a valuable tool to the targeted audience. I am not overly enthusiastic about the end result, but I might be prejudiced. Clearly, going further would require the full power of quantum field theory, but this is clearly beyond the scope of the book.
Much of the remainder of this book will concern itself with those aspects of theoretical physics which seek to understand the nature of matter. Such understanding as we have has mainly been achieved by probing the structure of successively smaller constituents and, at least on the face of things, the regions of space and time we need to consider are far too small for spacetime curvature to be of any signicance. Many of our considerations will therefore be restricted to Minkowski or, as in the present chapter, Galilean spacetime. Paradoxically, however, it seems that gravity and the structure of space and time may have a vital role to play in our understanding of matter on the very smallest scales, and we shall see something of the ways in which this comes about in later chapters.
The difficulties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difficulties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difficult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difficulties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can influence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justified and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.
Based on the law of conservation of energy, we have shown that, the steady state electronic motion around a given nucleus in a non-circular orbit depicts a rest mass variation, though the overall relativistic energy remains constant. This is, in no way, conflicting with the usual quantum mechanical approach. On the contrary, it provides us with the possibility of bridging the special theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, to finally achieve a natural symbiosis between these two disciplines, and furthermore, elucidating the “quantum mechanical weirdness”, simply based on the mere law of relativistic conservation of energy. Our theory was developed originally, vis-a-vis gravitational bodies in motion with regard to each other; hence, it is comforting to have both the atomic scale and the celestial scale described on just the same conceptual basis. One way to conceive the rest mass variation of concern is to consider a “jet effect”. Accordingly, a particle on a given orbit through its journey must eject a net mass from its back to accelerate, or must pile up a net mass from its front to decelerate, while its overall relativistic energy stays constant throughout. In other words, a minimal rest mass is transformed into extra kinetic energy through an acceleration process, and kinetic energy condenses into extra rest mass through a deceleration process. The tangential speed of the jet in question, strikingly points to the de Broglie wavelength. This, on the whole, makes the jet speed ‘’superluminal”, yet excluding any transport of energy. This conjecture coincides with the recent measurements (Kholmetskii et al., 2007; Salart et al., 2008), and provides a clue for the wave-particle duality, also insures their concurrent coexistence. An important consequence of the approach presented herein is that, either gravitationally interacting macroscopic bodies, or electrically interacting microscopic objects, sense each other, with a speed much greater than that of light, and this, in exactly the same way. In which case, though, the interaction coming into play, excludes any energy exchange; thus, we would like to call it, “wave-like interaction”. The present approach ends up the existing schizophrenia, between different conceptions painting separately the micro world and the macro world, and unites these two worlds with an unequal, single and simple conception, based on just the law of relativistic energy conservation.
Key words: Special theory of relativity, electric interaction, tachyons, de Broglie relationship, superluminal or wave-like interaction, general theory of relativity, gravitation.