Foundations of Physics

, Volume 31, Issue 12, pp 1703–1731 | Cite as

Quantum Theory and Linear Stochastic Electrodynamics

  • L. de la Peña
  • A. M. Cetto
Article

Abstract

We discuss the main results of Linear Stochastic Electrodynamics, starting from a reformulation of its basic assumptions. This theory shares with Stochastic Electrodynamics the core assumption that quantization comes about from the permanent interaction between matter and the vacuum radiation field, but it departs from it when it comes to considering the effect that this interaction has on the statistical properties of the nearby field. In the transition to the quantum regime, correlations between field modes of well-defined characteristic frequencies arise, which coincide with the transition frequencies of quantum mechanics and are therefore directly related with the energy quantization. The Heisenberg equations of motion of (non-relativistic) quantum electrodynamics are thus obtained. After a detailed consideration of the significance of the approximations made, we present a discussion on some of the most delicate or controversial features of quantum mechanics from the perspective provided by the present theory.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    L. de la Penñ and A.M. Cetto, The Quantum Dice. An introduction to Stochastic Electrodynamics (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1996).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. de la Penñ and A.M. Cetto, “Linear stochastic electrodynamics: Looking for the physics behind quantum theory, ” in New Perspectives on Quantum Mechanics, S. Hacyan, R. Jáuregui, and R. López-Penñ, eds., AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 464 (American Institute of Physics, New York, 1999).There is an unabridged version of this work: L. de la Peña, “Stochastic Electrodynamics: Looking for the Physics Behind Quantum Theory. Course given at the XXXI Latin American School of Physics (ELAF), July 1998 (102 pages), which can be obtained from the author.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Born, W. Heisenberg, and P. Jordan, Z. Phys. 35, 557 (1926); reprinted in Sources of Quantum Mechanics, B.L. van der Waerden, ed.(Dover, New York, 1968).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. H. Boyer, in Foundations of Radiation Theory and Quantum Electrodynamics, A. O. Barut, ed.(Plenum, London, 1980).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. W. Marshall and E. Santos, Found. Phys. 18, 185 (1988).Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    This point is discussed with particular clarity in A.O. Barut, Electrodynamics and Classical Theory of Fields and Particles (Dover, New York, 1980), Section V.5.Google Scholar
  7. 9.
    The cancellation of the effects of absorption from the vacuum field and radiation into the vacuum is so nearly satisfied, that it has lead to Jaynes to read the phenomenon just in the opposite sense, i.e., to consider that the radiated field is just the vacuum field, thus negating the existence of such a field by itself.From this point of view, that the field is there, where and when it is needed is guaranteed by the radiation.See E. T. Jaynes in Complexity, Entropy and the Physics of Information, W.H. Zurek, ed., Santa Fe Institute (Perseus Books, Reading, MA, 1990).Google Scholar
  8. 10.
    D. Home, Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Physics: An Overview from Modern Perspectives (Plenum, New York, 1997).Google Scholar
  9. 11.
    T.W. Marshall and E. Santos, Found. Phys. 18, 185 (1988); Phys. Rev. A 39, 6271 (1989). E. Santos, Phys. Rev. A 46, 3646 (1992), and references therein.Google Scholar
  10. 13.
    W. Nernst, Verhandl. Deutsch. Phys. Ges. 18, 83 (1916).Google Scholar
  11. 14.
    S. Bergia, in I Fondamenti della Meccanica Quantistica. Analisi Storica e Problemi Aperti, G. Cattaneo and A. Rossi, eds.(EditEl, Commenda di Rende, 1991).Google Scholar
  12. 15.
    T. H. Boyer, Phys. Rev. D 11, 790 (1975).Google Scholar
  13. 16.
    P. Claverie and S. Diner, in Localization and Delocalization in Quantum Chemistry, O. Chalvet, R. Daudel, S. Diner, and J.-P. Malrieu, eds.(Reidel, Dordrecht, 1976).A detailed account and references to related work can be seen in Ref.1.H. França et al. have recently given another proof of the stability of the SED atom and used it for a succesfull calculation of transition rates.See H. França, H. Franco, and C.P. Malta, Eur. J. Phys. 18, 343 (1977).Google Scholar
  14. 17.
    Attempts can be seen in H. E. Puthoff, Phys. Rev. A 40, 4857 (1989), L. de la Peña and A.M. Cetto, Found. Phys. Lett. 10, 591 (1997), and R.W. Bess and D. Zes, “Planck's constant from Hubble's constant, ” 1999 draft. Calogero has developed a qualitatively similar idea, involving instead the gravitational field in F. Calogero, Phys. Lett. A 228, 335 (1997), whereas P.F. Gonzalez-Diaz in Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 46, 309 (1989) proposes what he calls stochastic gravitodynamics.Google Scholar
  15. 18.
    R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures in Physics, Vol.III (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1965).Google Scholar
  16. 19.
    E. J. Heller, in Chaos and Quantum Physics, M.-J. Giannom, A. Voros, and J. Zinn-Justin, eds.(Les Houches, Session LII) (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1989).See also P. O'Connor, J. Gehlen, and E.J. Heller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1296 (1987).Google Scholar
  17. 20.
    D. Wick, The Infamous Boundary. Seven Decades of Heresy in Quantum Physics (Copernicus, New York, 1995).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. de la Peña
    • 1
  • A. M. Cetto
    • 2
  1. 1.Instituto de Física, UNAMMexico, D.F.Mexico
  2. 2.Instituto de Física, UNAMMexico, D.F.Mexico

Personalised recommendations