Register to reply 
Why no tensors in quantum mechanics? 
Share this thread: 
#19
Oct1206, 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 experimentallymeaningful 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 KleinGordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at fullon quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though. 


#20
Oct1206, 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 experimentallymeaningful 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 KleinGordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at fullon quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though. 


#21
Oct1206, 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 experimentallymeaningful 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 KleinGordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at fullon quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though. 


#22
Oct1206, 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 experimentallymeaningful 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 KleinGordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at fullon quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though. 


#23
Oct1206, 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 experimentallymeaningful 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 KleinGordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at fullon quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though. 


#24
Oct1206, 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 experimentallymeaningful 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 KleinGordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at fullon quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though. 


#25
Oct1206, 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 experimentallymeaningful 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 KleinGordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at fullon quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though. 


#26
Oct1206, 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 experimentallymeaningful 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 KleinGordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at fullon quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though. 


#27
Oct1206, 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 experimentallymeaningful 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 KleinGordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at fullon quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though. 


#28
Oct1206, 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 experimentallymeaningful 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 KleinGordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at fullon quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though. 


#29
Oct1206, 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 experimentallymeaningful 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 KleinGordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at fullon quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though. 


#30
Oct1206, 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 experimentallymeaningful 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 KleinGordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at fullon quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though. 


#31
Oct1206, 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 experimentallymeaningful 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 KleinGordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at fullon quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though. 


#32
Oct1206, 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 experimentallymeaningful 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 KleinGordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at fullon quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though. 


#33
Oct1206, 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 experimentallymeaningful 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 KleinGordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at fullon quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though. 


#34
Oct1206, 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 experimentallymeaningful 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 KleinGordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at fullon quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though. 


#35
Oct1206, 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 experimentallymeaningful 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 KleinGordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at fullon quantum field theory. These theories are compatible with special relativity. General relativity is another matter though. 


#36
Oct1206, 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 experimentallymeaningful 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 KleinGordon equation and Dirac equation. Then take a look at fullon 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 