Register to reply

Most useful QM formalism?

by ice109
Tags: formalism
Share this thread:
ice109
#1
Nov24-07, 06:56 PM
P: 1,705
we have shroedinger's differential equation, heisenberg's matrix mechanics, dirac's formalism, and feynman sum over histories stuff.

now i may be wrong and and i really don't know anything but i think that these are all equivalent and some even the same thing. but if im going to learn QM for keeps, which is the most useful formalism? i see the point in wasting time learning one and then relearning how to do the same thing a different way. i think i might as well learn the best and just use that. any dissenting opinions on my aforementioned opinion appreciated. thx.
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
Engineers develop new sensor to detect tiny individual nanoparticles
Tiny particles have big potential in debate over nuclear proliferation
Ray tracing and beyond
Dr Transport
#2
Nov24-07, 08:02 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 1,475
You'll learn all of them during your studies.
ice109
#3
Nov24-07, 08:17 PM
P: 1,705
Quote Quote by Dr Transport View Post
You'll learn all of them during your studies.
and if i don't care to? can't you just give me some input?

christianjb
#4
Nov24-07, 08:51 PM
P: 529
Most useful QM formalism?

Your laziness impresses me, but ice is right. Besides, you don't have to learn the same things over and over again. The methods are complimentary.

Edit: I meant Dr Transport is right.
blechman
#5
Nov24-07, 09:19 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 779
Quote Quote by ice109 View Post
and if i don't care to? can't you just give me some input?
The thing is: sometimes one formalism is more natural than another, depending on the problem at hand. For example, in QFT, the Feynman approach is most often used, while in nonrelativistic QM, Schrodinger is useful when working in position/momentum space, while Heisenberg is useful when spin is involved... but even that rule of thumb is violated as often as it's true!

Sorry, ice109 - there is no one good choice. The literature covers all of them, so if you want to understand papers, you need all the formalisms.

But they're not all that hard! Once you learned the fundamentals, going from Schrodinger to Heisenberg, for example, is no trouble.
ice109
#6
Nov24-07, 11:08 PM
P: 1,705
im not worried about the difficulty, just the annoyance.
christianjb
#7
Nov24-07, 11:35 PM
P: 529
Well- I'm writing a paper at the moment where I use both Feynman path-integral and Schrodinger's equation to find particle momenta. I also solve S.E. using a matrix method, which connects with Heisenberg's formulation. Does that answer your question?
Dr Transport
#8
Nov25-07, 09:24 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 1,475
Quote Quote by blechman View Post
..... there is no one good choice. The literature covers all of them, so if you want to understand papers, you need all the formalisms....
Perfectly said, look through a years worth of any journal and you will find all of the representations.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Two questions about the ADM formalism Special & General Relativity 11
Help Matsubara Formalism Atomic, Solid State, Comp. Physics 3
Formalism of Newtonian Mechanics General Physics 24
Heisenberg Formalism Quantum Physics 5
Formalism General Discussion 9