Can someone give me a geometrical description of the math in QM?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter superpaul3000
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geometrical Qm
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion focuses on the geometrical visualization of quantum mechanics (QM), particularly the time-dependent wave equation in three dimensions. Participants explore the dimensionality of the wave function and its representation in higher-dimensional spaces, as well as the implications of combining functions in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the wave function psi(x,y,z,t) should be visualized in five-dimensional space due to its dependence on four variables, while another argues that it can be described with four coordinates, thus remaining four-dimensional.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of combining functions, with one participant asserting that combining y(x)=x^2 and y(x)=x results in a situation where multiple outputs exist for a single input, complicating the dimensionality argument.
  • Another participant explains that the wave function maps four dimensions onto a single complex number, which requires two real numbers to specify, and questions the feasibility of transforming coordinate systems to simplify the representation of functions like y=x^2.
  • Participants discuss the implications of physical phenomena being independent of the coordinate system used, emphasizing the necessity of understanding the underlying physics rather than merely the mathematical representation.
  • There is a clarification that the square of the wave function yields a real number that corresponds to the probability of finding a particle in four-dimensional space.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the dimensionality of the wave function and the nature of combining functions, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain without a clear consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of visualizing complex-valued functions and the challenges in transforming coordinate systems, suggesting that assumptions about dimensionality and function representation may vary significantly.

superpaul3000
Messages
62
Reaction score
1
So I’m trying to visualize what is going on in QM geometrically. More specifically I would like to visualize the time dependent wave equation in 3 dimensions. So let’s start with dimensionality. Normally when I think of a function of some variables, I picture it in a space with the number of dimensions equal to the number of variables plus one for the function. For instance, y(x) is usually mapped in 2 dimensions. So then my first impression of the wave equation is that it is a function of four variables, psi(x,y,z,t), so I should picture it in 5 dimensional space right?


This seemed obvious to me but when I talked to my professor about it he didn’t like the idea but he didn’t really explain himself. So I thought about it some more and I guess his point was that because you can still describe any point in that function with 4 coordinates then it is only 4 dimensional (the definition of dimensionality). I think that does make sense. If we take y(x)=x^2, you could transform the coordinate system so that it is just a straight line with unique points or you could map it as a scalar field on the x axis. So then it really is only 1 dimensional. We then think of the wave function as a scalar field in 4 dimensions so I guess problem solved right?


I’m not so sure. Look back at y(x)=x^2 and add y(x)=x to that plot. Now there is no way to describe those two functions in one dimension because you need more than one coordinate to describe any point. Even if you transform the coordinate system or plot as a scalar field you will have overlap. This system is truly 2 dimensional. So what if we consider two electron guns firing together once every second. If you plot the scalar field of the probabilities of the two electrons then you need 5 coordinates to describe any point in that system (the x y z position, the time, and which particle). Trust me this sounds crazy to me too so I’m thinking I’m just missing something simple and obvious. Anyone care to explain?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
superpaul3000 said:
y(x)=x^2 and add y(x)=x

Correct me if I misunderstood but adding these would produce a single value. The function would be f(x)=x+x^2.
 
your wave function psi(x,y,z,t) maps R^4 onto C^1, four dimensions onto a single one in the complex plane (which does require 2 real numbers to specify).

How would you transform the coordinate system such that y=x^2 is a straight line? No linear transformation exists. Consider a cannon ball shot in the air; its path is parabolic. In whatever coordinate system you chose to apply this, it always reaches an intermediate height twice during the path. The physical system dictates this, and it is necessary that physical phenomenon are independent of the coordinate system you chose to express them in.
 
James Leighe said:
Correct me if I misunderstood but adding these would produce a single value. The function would be f(x)=x+x^2.

Ya but that is not what I'm talking about. That is still a function. I'm talking about the two functions combined in such a way that the result is not a function (2 y's for every x).
 
MikeyW said:
your wave function psi(x,y,z,t) maps R^4 onto C^1, four dimensions onto a single one in the complex plane (which does require 2 real numbers to specify).

How would you transform the coordinate system such that y=x^2 is a straight line? No linear transformation exists. Consider a cannon ball shot in the air; its path is parabolic. In whatever coordinate system you chose to apply this, it always reaches an intermediate height twice during the path. The physical system dictates this, and it is necessary that physical phenomenon are independent of the coordinate system you chose to express them in.

I guess coordinate transformation was a bad example. Can you elaborate on the first part you wrote?
 
what MikeyW is saying is that your wave function is a mapping from Cartesian 4-space (R4) to the complex numbers (C1). That is each possible state in 4-space mapped to a single complex probability amplitude. Visualizing complex valued functions is not at all like real analysis.
The square of the wave function, however, is a real number, and is proportional to the probability of finding a particle in 4-space at position (x,y,z,t).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K