| |
 |
UNIVERSITY OF BUCHAREST
FACULTY OF PHYSICS Guest
2024-11-22 2:05 |
 |
|
|
|
Conference: Bucharest University Faculty of Physics 2003 Meeting
Section: Nuclear and Elementary Particles Physics
Title:
Remarks about the relativistic dynamics of quantum systems
Authors:
I. Lazanu
Affiliation:
University of Bucharest, Faculty of Physics,
POBox MG-11, Bucharest-Magurele, Romania
e-mail: I_Lazanu@yahoo.co.uk
E-mail
Keywords:
Abstract:
One of the most important problems in elementary particle physics consists in the construction of a simple, well-defined theory which unites the ideas of quantum mechanics and relativity. The "standard" covariant relativistic theory is Einstein’s theory. An original, alternative, consistent classical and quantum relativistic mechanics has been created by Stueckelberg in 1941, and developed later by Horwitz and co-workers. If Einstein’s covariant time is considered as a dynamical variable (by introducing a minor modification in the extremum condition for the Einstein’s action integral, the obtained theory is a logical extension of the Schrodinger theory in 4-dimensional space-time), and thus the evolution of the system can be parameterized by a universal invariant associated with Newton’s time. In this theory the rest mass of a particle is not an invariant quantity, and because in all the cases the system is an interacting field, the mass must be considered as a dynamical variable and depends on the state of interaction of the particle. This framework involves treating all four components of energy-momentum as independent variables, reflecting the understanding of the Einstein time as a non-trivially measurable quantity and does not restrict the particle to an infinitely sharp mass shell. In this talk, the time, the localization and the evolution of states are discussed comparatively in these two theories, for particular simple examples. In the off-shell mass theory, the states of the neutral K-meson (or states of mass for the neutrino) are not observables and then the mass of the system, as well as the position, are not well defined. Possible suggestions of interpretation of this physical problem are considered.
|
|
|
|