Klien Gordon Equation solution under Lorentz transformation

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the transformation of the wavefunction in the context of the Klein-Gordon equation under Lorentz transformations. The original poster questions why the wavefunction must transform as ψ'(x') = λψ(x) with |λ| = 1. Responses clarify that this transformation is a consequence of the invariance of quantum theory under Poincaré transformations, rather than an assumption. The transformation behavior is linked to the nature of scalar fields and the full Poincaré group, which includes spatial reflections. Ultimately, the transformation properties of the wavefunction are derived from the underlying principles of relativistic quantum mechanics.
McLaren Rulez
Messages
289
Reaction score
3
Hi,

I am using Griener's Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and I have a question. Using the Klien Gordon Equation (p^{\mu}p_{\mu}-m_{0}c^{2})\psi=0, he says that the transformation law for the wavefunction i.e \psi(x) transforming to \psi'(x') must have the form \psi'(x')=\lambda \psi(x) with |\lambda|=1. I don't understand why this is the case. Can anyone help me see why this must be so?

Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It doesn't follow really. I'm thinking that any massive spin n representation of the Poincare group must obey the mass sheet condition: p^2 - m^2 = 0.

Think about the Dirac field for a second: by squaring the Dirac equation you get the Klein-Gordon equation which is satisfied by the field, but under restricted Poincare transformation, the Dirac field transforms like a (1/2,0) directsum (0,1/2) spinor, not like a (pseudo)scalar.
 
I am a doing this as a bit of holiday reading so I'm actually completely unfamiliar with what you're saying. So basically, how do we know how the wavefunction transforms when we go from one frame to another? What tells us that it must be the same up to a minus sign?

Thank you
 
[...]So basically, how do we know how the wavefunction transforms when we go from one frame to another? [...]

Actually, we don't. The scalar field's existence is a consequence of a quantum theory invariant under Poincare trasformations. Its behavior under such transformations is again a result, not an assumption. The minus sign comes from considering the full Poincare group, or a subgroup containing the spatial reflection.
 
Thank you dextercioby
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
336
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K