Why no tensors in quantum mechanics?


by cfgauss
Tags: mechanics, quantum, tensors
mikem@despammed.com
#19
Oct12-06, 04:17 AM
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.

mikem@despammed.com
#20
Oct12-06, 04:17 AM
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.

mikem@despammed.com
#21
Oct12-06, 04:17 AM
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.

mikem@despammed.com
#22
Oct12-06, 04:17 AM
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.

mikem@despammed.com
#23
Oct12-06, 04:17 AM
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.

mikem@despammed.com
#24
Oct12-06, 04:17 AM
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.

mikem@despammed.com
#25
Oct12-06, 04:17 AM
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.

mikem@despammed.com
#26
Oct12-06, 04:17 AM
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.


mikem@despammed.com
#27
Oct12-06, 04:17 AM
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.

mikem@despammed.com
#28
Oct12-06, 04:17 AM
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.

mikem@despammed.com
#29
Oct12-06, 04:17 AM
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.

mikem@despammed.com
#30
Oct12-06, 04:17 AM
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.

mikem@despammed.com
#31
Oct12-06, 04:17 AM
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.

mikem@despammed.com
#32
Oct12-06, 04:17 AM
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.

mikem@despammed.com
#33
Oct12-06, 04:17 AM
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.

mikem@despammed.com
#34
Oct12-06, 04:17 AM
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.

mikem@despammed.com
#35
Oct12-06, 04:17 AM
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.

mikem@despammed.com
#36
Oct12-06, 04:17 AM
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.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Why no tensors in quantum mechanics? General Physics 0