Spread of a relativistic quantum particle [Archive]

alejandro.rivero

Jun23-04, 12:36 PM

Jul2-04, 04:31 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nalejandro.rivero <rivero@sol.unizar.es> writes\n>\n>In NR QM, a particle is unable to resolve positions finer than h/p,\n>call it its De Broglie Length.\n>\n>But in we have two different sources of fuzziness. On one side the\n>particle is spread around its Compton Length, h/cm. On the other side\n>the particle stills has a momentum, and a De Broglie Length h/p. For a\n>photon both lengths coincide. But what for a massive particle? Is the\n>relativistic particle able to resolve positions beyond h/p, or does\n>this limit stand?\n\nI assume this has been expressed as a tensor field?\n[Ignoring spin]\n\nI further assume that applying the appropriate 4D Lorentz tranform will\nswitch between compton and de broglie. The \'amount\' and \'wavelength\' of\neach being dependent on the frame of the observer.\n\nIf so (and surely it must be so), isn\'t one just the LT of the other?\n\nNow that would imply that one (presumably the compton) is a wave \'in\ntime\' and the other (presumably de broglie) is a \'wave in space\'.\n\nI would be very grateful indeed if some kind soul could give some\nexpression for the wave in its 4D representation. I presume a form as\nlong since been derived.\n\n--\nOz\nThis post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.\n\nBTOPENWORLD address about to cease. DEMON address no longer in use.\n>>Use oz@farmeroz.port995.com (whitelist check on first posting)<<\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>alejandro.rivero <rivero@sol.unizar.es> writes
>
>In NR QM, a particle is unable to resolve positions finer than h/p,
>call it its De Broglie Length.
>
>But in we have two different sources of fuzziness. On one side the
>particle is spread around its Compton Length, h/cm. On the other side
>the particle stills has a momentum, and a De Broglie Length h/p. For a
>photon both lengths coincide. But what for a massive particle? Is the
>relativistic particle able to resolve positions beyond h/p, or does
>this limit stand?

I assume this has been expressed as a tensor field?
[Ignoring spin]

I further assume that applying the appropriate 4D Lorentz tranform will
switch between compton and de broglie. The 'amount' and 'wavelength' of
each being dependent on the frame of the observer.

If so (and surely it must be so), isn't one just the LT of the other?

Now that would imply that one (presumably the compton) is a wave 'in
time' and the other (presumably de broglie) is a 'wave in space'.

I would be very grateful indeed if some kind soul could give some
expression for the wave in its 4D representation. I presume a form as
long since been derived.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

BTOPENWORLD address about to cease. DEMON address no longer in use.
>>Use oz@farmeroz.port995.com (whitelist check on first posting)<<