Do wave functions go to zero at ~ct?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the behavior of wave functions in quantum mechanics (QM) and their relationship to relativistic constraints, particularly regarding the propagation of particles and the implications of measurements on their wave functions. Participants explore whether wave functions go to zero at distances greater than ct and how this relates to the concept of light cones and the limitations of QM in relativistic contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that after measuring an electron's position, its wave function evolves and expands infinitely, leading to a small probability of finding it at distances greater than ct from the initial position.
  • Another participant argues that a wave function does not propagate in the traditional sense and always extends to infinity, but emphasizes that the electron cannot be found beyond ct due to relativistic constraints.
  • There is a question about whether the discussion pertains to propagators in quantum field theory (QFT) or wave functions in QM, noting that QM does not incorporate the concept of light cones.
  • One participant expresses concern that the wave function's behavior might imply superluminal travel, highlighting the need for an initial position measurement that collapses the wave function to a delta function.
  • Another participant points out that since QM is built on classical mechanics, it is not surprising that it allows for scenarios where particles appear to travel faster than light, suggesting that classical mechanics is inadequate at relativistic speeds.
  • A reference is made to a specific chapter in a quantum mechanics textbook for further details on the limitations of QM in relation to relativity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of wave functions in QM, particularly regarding their behavior at relativistic distances. There is no consensus on whether wave functions should be considered to go to zero at ct or if they extend infinitely, and the discussion remains unresolved with competing perspectives on the relationship between QM and relativity.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the application of QM to relativistic scenarios and the potential need for QFT to address these issues. Participants note that assumptions about wave function propagation and measurement effects may not align with relativistic principles.

Cadaei
Messages
24
Reaction score
1
Suppose you have a free election and you make a measurement of its position r_0 at time t = 0. You then wait some time t required for the wave function to evolve out of its collapsed eigenstate. The electron now supposedly has a wave function expanding to infinity in all directions, albeit with exponentially decreasing amplitude. Thus there should be a small probability that we (or I suppose by necessity, someone else) find the electron at some distance d > ct from r_0. Yet we should never be able to find the electron at distances greater than ct from r_0 since its velocity cannot exceed c.

Do wave functions actually reach to infinity, or do they go to zero at ct, or something else?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
One thing to note is that a wavefunction is not something that propagates, that is, it's not like in the beginning the value of a wavefunction at some distance z is zero then at some later time our initial wavefunction has propagated to reach z. A wavefunction always extends to infinity at every time.
Cadaei said:
Yet we should never be able to find the electron at distances greater than ct from r_0 since its velocity cannot exceed c.
Let's suppose that our electron is described by a wavepacket. By definition, even at time t=0 where the wavepacket is peaked, let's say at z=0, we still have some probability to find this electron at any position.
 
Are you asking about propagators in QFT or wave-functions in QM? There is no notion of a light cone in QM so why should the probability amplitude have compact support on light cones?
 
Are you asking about propagators in QFT or wave-functions in QM? There is no notion of a light cone in QM so why should the probability amplitude have compact support on light cones?

Wave functions in QM. So I guess you're saying that canonical QM formalism just doesn't apply to this regime, requiring QFT?

One thing to note is that a wavefunction is not something that propagates, that is, it's not like in the beginning the value of a wavefunction at some distance z is zero then at some later time our initial wavefunction has propagated to reach z. A wavefunction always extends to infinity at every time.

I think you misunderstand. My beef is that the electron would appear to have traveled faster than c. The wave function does not propagate, but to know how far the electron travelled, we'd need an initial position measurement, which collapses to a delta function that genuinely is zero everywhere except at the measured position. Thus we'd have to wait for the wave function to evolve out of that eigenstate before a subsequent measurement.
 
Last edited:
Cadaei said:
I think you misunderstand. My beef is that the electron would appear to have traveled faster than c.

Since QM builds on classical mechanics and not on relativity, you should not be surprised that this happens. You can have particles traveling faster than c in classical mechanics too, it is just that classical mechanics is not a very good description at relativistic velocities.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
Orodruin said:
Since QM builds on classical mechanics and not on relativity

To the OP. Read Chapter 3 of Ballentine - Quantum Mechanics - A Modern Development for the full detail of why that's the case.

If you want to incorporate relativity you need Quantum Field Theory.

Thanks
Bill
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
8K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K