Is QM Phase Inherently Relativistic?

LarryS
Gold Member
Messages
356
Reaction score
33
The phase of a pure momentum state for a single particle traveling freely is

(p.r – Et) / h-bar.

This also happens to be the Minkowski space-time dot product of the 4-momentum and the space-time 4-vector (relativistic action).

Is that just a coincidence or is phase inherently relativistic?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Good question.

If you use a relativistic wave equation this phase somehow survives in the non-relativistic limit. But I guess that is not really the explanation you are expecting.
 
In The Feynman Lectures Vol 3 Ch 7, Feynman begins by postulating that the wave function for a particle at rest is constant in space and varies as e^{-iE t/ \hbar} in time. He then uses the relativistic dot product to derive the wave function for a moving particle.

In other words, a particle at rest can be thought of as being in a plane wave that is headed purely in the time direction. Its wavefronts are planes of constant time. However, with respect to a moving frame, those surfaces of constant time will now be "tilted" in spacetime, leading to the spatial variation of e^{ipx/\hbar}.
 
matonski said:
In The Feynman Lectures Vol 3 Ch 7, Feynman begins by postulating that the wave function for a particle at rest is constant in space and varies as e^{-iE t/ \hbar} in time. He then uses the relativistic dot product to derive the wave function for a moving particle.

In other words, a particle at rest can be thought of as being in a plane wave that is headed purely in the time direction. Its wavefronts are planes of constant time. However, with respect to a moving frame, those surfaces of constant time will now be "tilted" in spacetime, leading to the spatial variation of e^{ipx/\hbar}.

Interesting. I will have to read up on that.
 
referframe said:
The phase of a pure momentum state for a single particle traveling freely is

(p.r – Et) / h-bar.

This also happens to be the Minkowski space-time dot product of the 4-momentum and the space-time 4-vector (relativistic action).

Is that just a coincidence or is phase inherently relativistic?

In non-relativistic QM, E=p^2/2m.
 
Meir Achuz said:
In non-relativistic QM, E=p^2/2m.

Yes, and that expression normally occurs in operator form on left side of the Schrodinger equation. But the right side of that equation and also the definition of the momentum and energy operators is based on the expression (p.r - Et)/h-bar .
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...
Back
Top