Observables vs. continuum and metric?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the nature of space in quantum mechanics and its relationship with observables, particularly in the context of continuous spectra. It establishes that while space can be modeled as a continuum, not all continuous observables are necessarily tied to spatial continuity. The conversation highlights the importance of inertial frames and Cartesian coordinate systems in defining mechanics, referencing key texts such as Landau's "Classical Mechanics" and Ballentine's "Quantum Mechanics - A Modern Development" for deeper understanding.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles, particularly observables and spectra.
  • Familiarity with the Pythagorean theorem and triangle inequality in the context of geometry.
  • Knowledge of inertial frames and their role in mechanics.
  • Basic concepts of special and general relativity.
NEXT STEPS
  • Read Landau's "Classical Mechanics" to grasp foundational mechanics concepts.
  • Study Ballentine's "Quantum Mechanics - A Modern Development" for insights into quantum observables.
  • Explore the implications of continuous spectra in quantum mechanics and their relation to space.
  • Investigate the role of Cartesian coordinate systems in defining physical laws across different reference frames.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, quantum mechanics students, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of space and observables in quantum theory.

TangledMind
Messages
5
Reaction score
1
Space in quantum mechanics seems to be modeled as a triplet of real numbers, i.e. a continuum. Same happens in special relativity. General relativity I do not know (nor field theories). And then we apply the Pythagorean theorem and triangle inequality and so forth...

I have a few general questions:

1) Is space (3d or Minkowski) the only continuum?

If a quantum mechanical operator describing an observable has a continuous spectrum (partially at least),
i.e. the observable is allowed to take, in principle, real values,
then is this always an end result of the assumption that space is continuous?
Or are there seemingly continuous observables that are not related to space?

An example: Bound electrons in a hydrogen atom have discrete spectra, both theoretically and experimentally, but free ones have seemingly continuous, and the Coulomb law plays a role there theoretically, and the fact that space would be a continuum.

2) Is it so that based on experiments, space in QM can always be assumed to have locally euclidean metric?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
TangledMind said:
Is space (3d or Minkowski) the only continuum?

Of course not. But I am not aware of any models not using it that has been successful.

TangledMind said:
If a quantum mechanical operator describing an observable has a continuous spectrum (partially at least),
i.e. the observable is allowed to take, in principle, real values, then is this always an end result of the assumption that space is continuous? Or are there seemingly continuous observables that are not related to space?

This is tied up with what mechanics is. These days its defined by what transformation you use between reference frames which are assumed to contain a Cartesian 3 dimension coordinate system.

To fully understand this view I suggest two books:

First is Landau - Classical Mechanics
Second is Ballentine - Quantum Mechanics - A Modern Development.

The symmetry of inertial frames is the key, and those frames by definition have Cartesian coordinate systems with continuous real values.

Thanks
Bill
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K