It is shown that the present procedure used to quantize relativistic systems is inconsistent. Three mutually supporting arguments are given to sustain this conclusion. First, it is noted that the use of wave functions which transform according to any representation of 0(1, 3) whether finite or infinite dimensional is inappropriate because such a description allows for too many degrees of freedom. The phenomenon of Thomas precession indicates that internal structure such as spin and multipole moments must be described by mass shell (rest system) three-tensors rather than by unconstrained four-tensors. Second, even if representations of 0(1, 3) are employed, the momentum space construction for position-time operators, which is quite general and is applicable in any Euclidean or pseudo-Euclidean space, requires that the infinite-dimensional UIRs of 0(1, 3) be used rather than the finite-dimensional, nonunitary spinor representations. Third, various anomalous features of the customary kinematic formalism can be readily understood provided that this formalism is viewed as anad hoc blend of two other formalisms which, while self-consistent, are incompatible except for the trivial case of free one-particle states. These criticisms focus attention on a number of specific weaknesses of the kinematic foundations of relativistic quantum mechanics and relativistic quantum field theory. These weaknesses are sufficiently serious to require a radical revision of the current theory even at the kinematic level.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Barut, A. O., and Malin, S. (1968).Reviews of Modern Physics,40, 632.
Bongaarts, P. J. M. (1972). “Linear Fields According to I. E. Segal.” inMathematics of Contemporary Physics, Streater, R. F., ed. Academic, New York.
Broyles, A. A. (1970).Physical Review D,1, 979.
Fano, U., and Racah, G. (1959).Irreducible Tensorial Sets. Academic, New York.
Feynman, R. P., and Hibbs, A. R. (1965).Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Fleming, G. N. (1965).Physical Review,137B, 188.
Johnson, J. E. (1969).Physical Review,181, 1755.
Jordan, T. F., and Mukunda, N. (1963).Physical Review,132, 1842.
McConnell, A. J. (1957).Applications of Tensor Analysis. Dover, New York.
Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S., and Wheeler, J. A. (1973).Gravitation, p. 174. Freeman, San Francisco.
Moussa, P., and Stora, R. (1968). “Angular Analysis,” inAnalysis of Scattering and Decay, Nikolić, M., ed. Gordon and Breach, New York.
Naimark, M. A. (1964).Linear Representations of the Lorentz Group. Macmillan, New York.
Newton, T. D., and Wigner, E. P. (1949).Reviews of Modern Physics,21, 400.
Rohrlich, F. (1965).Classical Charged Particles, p. 140. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
Sorg, M. (1974).Zeitschrift för Naturforschung,29a, 1671.
Synge, J. L. (1970),Annali Di Matematica Pura Ed Applicata,84, 33.
Wightman, A. S., and Schweber, S. (1955).Physical Review,98, 812.
Wigner, E. P. (1939).Annals of Mathematics,40, 149.
Work supported in part by the National Research Council of Canada.
About this article
Cite this article
Coleman, R.A. Space-time operators and the incompatibility of quantum mechanics with both finite-dimensional spinor fields and Lagrangian dynamics in the context of special relativity. Int J Theor Phys 17, 83–141 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00686954
- Spinor Representation
- Mass Shell
- Spinor Field
- Multipole Moment
- Relativistic Quantum Mechanic