Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

So simple yet so problematic

  1. May 12, 2006 #1
    If we consider a system (say an electron) with respect his own reference frame, we find that it is placed in an exact position (let's say the origin) and it has an exact momentum (it is at rest with respect to his own reference frame); due the very definition of such reference frame.


    Quantum mechanics excludes the existence of proper reference frames?. If so, what happens with proper time?. Can we talk about simultaneity when dealing with quantum mechanics? Do 'simultaneous measurements' (of non-cunmuting observables or whatever) have sense?
  2. jcsd
  3. May 12, 2006 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    The problem here is that you made an explicit assumption that is your starting point which is not substantiated by evidence. You have made an explicit assumption that an "electron" is a point object like a tennis ball that can be defined clearly as to where it is in such a way that you can transform to its reference frame. How are you sure this is valid when there's plenty of indication that a "smearing" of position simultaneously can also be interpreted for the electron? Look at H2 bonding or even atomic orbitals for examples.

    When you start off with the wrong premise, then any kinds of nonsensical conclusion can be possible. We don't have such luxury in physics. The parameters and scenario that we can use must be based on some ground of something realistic. Unrealistic assumption will result in unrealistic results.

  4. May 12, 2006 #3
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: So simple yet so problematic
  1. Lorentz algebra SO(4) (Replies: 1)

  2. Representations of SO(3) (Replies: 30)