Dear Wei, It seems to me that there is no need for a "relativistic" version of QM for the simple reason that the wave function is not taken to be a field over space-time. It exist in Hilbert space not in spacetime. One could even argue somewhat coherently that "spacetime" is derived from the wavefunction, e.g. each "branching path" in MWI is a trajectiory in a spacetime and we might be able to "generate" some approximation of the spacetime of relativity by arranging together those trajectories that have common histories (branch points). Just a crazy thought. ;-)
Kindest regards, Stephen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wei Dai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 1:03 PM Subject: MWI of relativistic QM > On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 12:08:39PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > This comes from the fact that MWI is explained most of the time > > in the context of non relativistic QM (which assumes time and space). > > But this problem disappear once you take into account the > > space time structure of relativistic QM, where roughly speaking > > moment of time are handled by "parallel" universes (see Deutsch FOR). > > I got Deutsch's book, but it doesn't mention relativistic QM at all. Can > you elaborate on what the MWI of relativistic QM is, or point me to > another paper or book, or give me a page number in FOR that deals with > this? > > > With quantum *general* relativity, where the universe differentiate > > at the level of the space-time structure aswell, we get the > > all topological approach transforming the search of natural law > > into the search of knot invariant. I urge everyone interested > > in TOES to read the pedagogical chef d'oeuvre "KNOTS and PHYSICS" > > by Louis H Kaufmann. It is a shortcut to "standard TOES" (like > > quantum gravity approach) and the link with the self-reference > > logic approach is just a matter of ... time ;) > > I assume you're still working on the promised English paper/book. Can you > give us a complete list of prerequisites now for understanding it, so we > can get started on them now? :) I.e., what books must a person read before > reading your upcoming paper/book? > >