# Why no tensors in quantum mechanics?

by cfgauss
Tags: mechanics, quantum, tensors
 Share this thread:
 P: n/a Jeremy Price wrote: > We can write Psi in terms of real and > imaginary parts, say Psi = A + i B. > [...] > Can we at least do relativistic quantum > mechanics like this if we wanted to? I can't think why you'd want to. The probability density involves Psi* Psi which means both A^2 and B^2 contribute to the experimentally-meaningful probability. I doubt there's much value in separating the two things the way you suggest. As for QM and relativity, look in your nearest physics library for a book on relativistic QM, which will tell you about the Klein-Gordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at full-on quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though.
 P: n/a Jeremy Price wrote: > We can write Psi in terms of real and > imaginary parts, say Psi = A + i B. > [...] > Can we at least do relativistic quantum > mechanics like this if we wanted to? I can't think why you'd want to. The probability density involves Psi* Psi which means both A^2 and B^2 contribute to the experimentally-meaningful probability. I doubt there's much value in separating the two things the way you suggest. As for QM and relativity, look in your nearest physics library for a book on relativistic QM, which will tell you about the Klein-Gordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at full-on quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though.
 P: n/a Jeremy Price wrote: > We can write Psi in terms of real and > imaginary parts, say Psi = A + i B. > [...] > Can we at least do relativistic quantum > mechanics like this if we wanted to? I can't think why you'd want to. The probability density involves Psi* Psi which means both A^2 and B^2 contribute to the experimentally-meaningful probability. I doubt there's much value in separating the two things the way you suggest. As for QM and relativity, look in your nearest physics library for a book on relativistic QM, which will tell you about the Klein-Gordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at full-on quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though.
 P: n/a Jeremy Price wrote: > We can write Psi in terms of real and > imaginary parts, say Psi = A + i B. > [...] > Can we at least do relativistic quantum > mechanics like this if we wanted to? I can't think why you'd want to. The probability density involves Psi* Psi which means both A^2 and B^2 contribute to the experimentally-meaningful probability. I doubt there's much value in separating the two things the way you suggest. As for QM and relativity, look in your nearest physics library for a book on relativistic QM, which will tell you about the Klein-Gordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at full-on quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though.
 P: n/a Jeremy Price wrote: > We can write Psi in terms of real and > imaginary parts, say Psi = A + i B. > [...] > Can we at least do relativistic quantum > mechanics like this if we wanted to? I can't think why you'd want to. The probability density involves Psi* Psi which means both A^2 and B^2 contribute to the experimentally-meaningful probability. I doubt there's much value in separating the two things the way you suggest. As for QM and relativity, look in your nearest physics library for a book on relativistic QM, which will tell you about the Klein-Gordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at full-on quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though.
 P: n/a Jeremy Price wrote: > We can write Psi in terms of real and > imaginary parts, say Psi = A + i B. > [...] > Can we at least do relativistic quantum > mechanics like this if we wanted to? I can't think why you'd want to. The probability density involves Psi* Psi which means both A^2 and B^2 contribute to the experimentally-meaningful probability. I doubt there's much value in separating the two things the way you suggest. As for QM and relativity, look in your nearest physics library for a book on relativistic QM, which will tell you about the Klein-Gordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at full-on quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though.
 P: n/a Jeremy Price wrote: > We can write Psi in terms of real and > imaginary parts, say Psi = A + i B. > [...] > Can we at least do relativistic quantum > mechanics like this if we wanted to? I can't think why you'd want to. The probability density involves Psi* Psi which means both A^2 and B^2 contribute to the experimentally-meaningful probability. I doubt there's much value in separating the two things the way you suggest. As for QM and relativity, look in your nearest physics library for a book on relativistic QM, which will tell you about the Klein-Gordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at full-on quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though.
 P: n/a Jeremy Price wrote: > We can write Psi in terms of real and > imaginary parts, say Psi = A + i B. > [...] > Can we at least do relativistic quantum > mechanics like this if we wanted to? I can't think why you'd want to. The probability density involves Psi* Psi which means both A^2 and B^2 contribute to the experimentally-meaningful probability. I doubt there's much value in separating the two things the way you suggest. As for QM and relativity, look in your nearest physics library for a book on relativistic QM, which will tell you about the Klein-Gordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at full-on quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though.
 P: n/a Jeremy Price wrote: > We can write Psi in terms of real and > imaginary parts, say Psi = A + i B. > [...] > Can we at least do relativistic quantum > mechanics like this if we wanted to? I can't think why you'd want to. The probability density involves Psi* Psi which means both A^2 and B^2 contribute to the experimentally-meaningful probability. I doubt there's much value in separating the two things the way you suggest. As for QM and relativity, look in your nearest physics library for a book on relativistic QM, which will tell you about the Klein-Gordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at full-on quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though.
 P: n/a Jeremy Price wrote: > We can write Psi in terms of real and > imaginary parts, say Psi = A + i B. > [...] > Can we at least do relativistic quantum > mechanics like this if we wanted to? I can't think why you'd want to. The probability density involves Psi* Psi which means both A^2 and B^2 contribute to the experimentally-meaningful probability. I doubt there's much value in separating the two things the way you suggest. As for QM and relativity, look in your nearest physics library for a book on relativistic QM, which will tell you about the Klein-Gordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at full-on quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though.
 P: n/a Jeremy Price wrote: > We can write Psi in terms of real and > imaginary parts, say Psi = A + i B. > [...] > Can we at least do relativistic quantum > mechanics like this if we wanted to? I can't think why you'd want to. The probability density involves Psi* Psi which means both A^2 and B^2 contribute to the experimentally-meaningful probability. I doubt there's much value in separating the two things the way you suggest. As for QM and relativity, look in your nearest physics library for a book on relativistic QM, which will tell you about the Klein-Gordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at full-on quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though.
 P: n/a Jeremy Price wrote: > We can write Psi in terms of real and > imaginary parts, say Psi = A + i B. > [...] > Can we at least do relativistic quantum > mechanics like this if we wanted to? I can't think why you'd want to. The probability density involves Psi* Psi which means both A^2 and B^2 contribute to the experimentally-meaningful probability. I doubt there's much value in separating the two things the way you suggest. As for QM and relativity, look in your nearest physics library for a book on relativistic QM, which will tell you about the Klein-Gordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at full-on quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though.
 P: n/a Jeremy Price wrote: > We can write Psi in terms of real and > imaginary parts, say Psi = A + i B. > [...] > Can we at least do relativistic quantum > mechanics like this if we wanted to? I can't think why you'd want to. The probability density involves Psi* Psi which means both A^2 and B^2 contribute to the experimentally-meaningful probability. I doubt there's much value in separating the two things the way you suggest. As for QM and relativity, look in your nearest physics library for a book on relativistic QM, which will tell you about the Klein-Gordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at full-on quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though.
 P: n/a Jeremy Price wrote: > We can write Psi in terms of real and > imaginary parts, say Psi = A + i B. > [...] > Can we at least do relativistic quantum > mechanics like this if we wanted to? I can't think why you'd want to. The probability density involves Psi* Psi which means both A^2 and B^2 contribute to the experimentally-meaningful probability. I doubt there's much value in separating the two things the way you suggest. As for QM and relativity, look in your nearest physics library for a book on relativistic QM, which will tell you about the Klein-Gordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at full-on quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though.
 P: n/a Jeremy Price wrote: > We can write Psi in terms of real and > imaginary parts, say Psi = A + i B. > [...] > Can we at least do relativistic quantum > mechanics like this if we wanted to? I can't think why you'd want to. The probability density involves Psi* Psi which means both A^2 and B^2 contribute to the experimentally-meaningful probability. I doubt there's much value in separating the two things the way you suggest. As for QM and relativity, look in your nearest physics library for a book on relativistic QM, which will tell you about the Klein-Gordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at full-on quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though.
 P: n/a Jeremy Price wrote: > We can write Psi in terms of real and > imaginary parts, say Psi = A + i B. > [...] > Can we at least do relativistic quantum > mechanics like this if we wanted to? I can't think why you'd want to. The probability density involves Psi* Psi which means both A^2 and B^2 contribute to the experimentally-meaningful probability. I doubt there's much value in separating the two things the way you suggest. As for QM and relativity, look in your nearest physics library for a book on relativistic QM, which will tell you about the Klein-Gordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at full-on quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though.
 P: n/a Jeremy Price wrote: > We can write Psi in terms of real and > imaginary parts, say Psi = A + i B. > [...] > Can we at least do relativistic quantum > mechanics like this if we wanted to? I can't think why you'd want to. The probability density involves Psi* Psi which means both A^2 and B^2 contribute to the experimentally-meaningful probability. I doubt there's much value in separating the two things the way you suggest. As for QM and relativity, look in your nearest physics library for a book on relativistic QM, which will tell you about the Klein-Gordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at full-on quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though.
 P: n/a Jeremy Price wrote: > We can write Psi in terms of real and > imaginary parts, say Psi = A + i B. > [...] > Can we at least do relativistic quantum > mechanics like this if we wanted to? I can't think why you'd want to. The probability density involves Psi* Psi which means both A^2 and B^2 contribute to the experimentally-meaningful probability. I doubt there's much value in separating the two things the way you suggest. As for QM and relativity, look in your nearest physics library for a book on relativistic QM, which will tell you about the Klein-Gordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at full-on quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though.

 Related Discussions General Physics 0