- #1
- 2,147
- 50
It is clear that the concepts of position and momentum are idealizations from our macroscopic experience which are not appropriate in the quantum domain. Yet, in the presentations of elementary quantum mechanics I've seen so far, they are still used in a fundamental way. But obviously, they will be nothing like the position and momentum we know and therefore will seem "counterintuitive". What I'm trying to get at is that this counterintuitiveness is just an illusion, because we have no intuition about the quantum world that it can be "counter" to. This arises from the bad decision use the same names of "position" and "momentum" for something completely different and more fundamental.
The standard presentations give the idea that objects in the quantum domain still have the properties of position and momentum except that they are nothing like the ones we know. I think this is a bad way of saying it and leads to a lot of confusion. A better way is to say that position and momentum are approximate concepts valid in the large scale which arise from more fundamental concepts/concept ( which shouldn't be called by the same names ) valid at all scales, as far as we know.
An analogy with special relativity make this clearer. Before SR, the concepts of absolute spatial and temporal seperations were used in the description of motion. What special relativity taught us was that these concepts are valid at low velocities but are just approximations to a more fundamental entitiy called the spacetime interval. But we still sometimes think about special relativity by retaining our our old concepts and using the "counterintuitve" rules such as the lorentz transformations.
The language of events and invariant spacetime intervals is clearly superior to the language of lengths, time intervals and transformations. What I want to know is if there is an analogous viewpoint in Quantum Mechanics which uses more appropriate concepts for its formulation? If there is, I would be grateful if you can provide some references. FYI, I'm a first year undergraduate, so if you think it will be too technical for me at this stage, you can tell me that.
The standard presentations give the idea that objects in the quantum domain still have the properties of position and momentum except that they are nothing like the ones we know. I think this is a bad way of saying it and leads to a lot of confusion. A better way is to say that position and momentum are approximate concepts valid in the large scale which arise from more fundamental concepts/concept ( which shouldn't be called by the same names ) valid at all scales, as far as we know.
An analogy with special relativity make this clearer. Before SR, the concepts of absolute spatial and temporal seperations were used in the description of motion. What special relativity taught us was that these concepts are valid at low velocities but are just approximations to a more fundamental entitiy called the spacetime interval. But we still sometimes think about special relativity by retaining our our old concepts and using the "counterintuitve" rules such as the lorentz transformations.
The language of events and invariant spacetime intervals is clearly superior to the language of lengths, time intervals and transformations. What I want to know is if there is an analogous viewpoint in Quantum Mechanics which uses more appropriate concepts for its formulation? If there is, I would be grateful if you can provide some references. FYI, I'm a first year undergraduate, so if you think it will be too technical for me at this stage, you can tell me that.