Can anyone point me to some background for what looks like a bit of
sleight-of-hand in Feynman's half of the 1968 Dirac Lectures
(published together with Weinberg's lecture, in "Elementary Particles
and the Laws of Physics", Cambridge UP, 1987).
Feynman explains the existence and nature of antiparticles in a
remarkably intuitive way on p. 10, but the argument rests on something
leading to a point that seems far from intuitive (that an amplitude
"cannot be zero outside the light cone..."), on p. 8, and I would
greatly appreciate a relatively elementary reference that would enable
me to work through the necessary background:
"If a function f(t) can be Fourier decomposed into positive
frequencies only, i.e. if it can be written
f(t) = [Integral from 0 to Inf.] exp[-iwt] F(w) dw
then f cannot be zero for any finite range of t, unless trivially it
is zero everywhere.
[OP: sounds reasonable]
The validity of this theorem depends on F(w) satisfying certain
properties, the details of which I would prefer to avoid.
[OP: that's the sleight-of-hand; move on half a page]
...The theorem applies directly.
[OP: to an amplitude defined a few pages earlier]
In particular it cannot be zero outside the light cone of X1
[OP: Huh??? ].
In other words, there is an amplitude for particles to travel faster
than light and no arrangement of superposition (with only positive
energies) can get around that."
In essence, as I read it, Feynman's saying that a particle seen from
one reference frame can appear as an antiparticle from some others.
Wonderful!
But how does the amplitude "leak out of" the light cone? It sounds
like a sort of relativistic tunneling, which seems counterintuitive?
Can anyone suggest a reference that provides the background to this,
please?.
Pellis
patpowersspam@gmail.com - 12 Aug 2007 20:56 GMT
Well, I've read Feynman's "QED" and have a master's in mathematics, so
I'll risk making a fool of myself and jump in (as usual.)
> On Aug 11, 10:21 pm, pel...@london.edu wrote:
> Can anyone point me to some background for what looks like a bit of
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> is zero everywhere.
> [OP: sounds reasonable]
Not obvious to me.
> The validity of this theorem depends on F(w) satisfying certain
> properties, the details of which I would prefer to avoid.
> [OP: that's the sleight-of-hand; move on half a page]
Good. It is not obvious. That makes me feel better.
> ...The theorem applies directly.
> [OP: to an amplitude defined a few pages earlier]
> In particular it cannot be zero outside the light cone of X1
> [OP: Huh??? ].
Like he said, the amplitude is non-zero everywhere. And everywhere is
everywhere.
> In other words, there is an amplitude for particles to travel faster
> than light and no arrangement of superposition (with only positive
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> one reference frame can appear as an antiparticle from some others.
> Wonderful!
I think you are correct, since Feynman said "an anti-particle is a
particle going backward in time."
> But how does the amplitude "leak out of" the light cone? It sounds
> like a sort of relativistic tunneling, which seems counterintuitive?
Albert Einstein thought that no thing in the Universe could influence
any other thing outside of its light cone. Experiment proved him
wrong. So abandon this false belief and your confusion is dispelled.
I hope.
guille2306 - 13 Aug 2007 21:30 GMT
I'll take the risk to give you a fast answer and put more noise (I
don't have the math books at hand, so I can only tell you something I
remember... :-) )
> "If a function f(t) can be Fourier decomposed into positive
> frequencies only, i.e. if it can be written
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> properties, the details of which I would prefer to avoid.
> [OP: that's the sleight-of-hand; move on half a page]
I think the answer to both points could be related to the oneness of
the Fourier decomposition plus f (or F) being infinitely smooth
everywhere (I mean, it should have finite derivatives of any order in
any point, as almost any physically meaningful function has). Under
those assumptions if two functions have the same Fourier decomposition
in a finite open range, they are the same everywhere.
Now, if one function is zero in a finite range, all their derivatives
are zero in any point of that (open) range. But if we assume that the
function is smooth, then it should be zero everywhere because it has
the same decomposition than the identically zero function in that
range.
Obviously there is a problem: I have not idea of what Feynman meant
with "satisfying certain properties" (and I don't have the book), so I
can be wrong. But I hope it is helpful...
guillermo
scerir - 14 Aug 2007 17:22 GMT
pellis:
> Can anyone suggest a reference
> that provides the background to this,
> please?.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0704.1468
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0707.0475
pellis@london.edu - 15 Aug 2007 12:28 GMT
> pellis:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0704.1468http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0707.0475
Many thanks for all three replies, and especially for the references.
Pellis
Grouchy - 17 Aug 2007 15:59 GMT
Ha.
First, it's always difficult to tell by reading Feynman when he's
being sly or jokey, and when he's being deep.
[Moderator's note: Of course, he might be in some sort of superposition
in which he is both simultaneously. -P.H.]
The best way to approach the problem is to ignore the cult of Feynman,
or the Feynmanette's, as I'd call them... and to instead just look at
the documentation from mathcad or mathematica or a EECS circuit theory
lab... here's links to all three:
(hot linkfarm)
http://www.ecampus.com/isbnbrowser2/isbnstart/0070
(best for serious coders, physicists should just pay the
license...heh).
http://www.mpassociates.gr/software/distrib/science/mathsoft/mcad13/signal_proce
ssing.html
(Gotta love wiki for including the code in the article)
http://wiki.4hv.org/index.php/Fourier_Analysis
The difference is that the Feynmanette's can't grasp that neither
electrical engineers nor coders use the same theoretical jargon or
even variable parameters. So here's Williamson link: Where the
ACTUAL elements are simmed for dimwitted physicists.
http://www.williamson-labs.com/
Maybe you'll see the same, but different (not an anti-matter implosion
in sight!)
http://www.ntsc-tv.com/ntsc-index-05.htm
On Aug 15, 7:28 am, pel...@london.edu wrote:
> > pellis:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Pellis