The lore on complex probabilities

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter arivero
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Quantum mechanics
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the origins of complex probabilities in quantum mechanics, particularly referencing Richard Feynman's interpretation of space-time paths and the role of complex exponentials. The conversation highlights the influence of Paul Dirac's work, specifically his 1932 publication, "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics," which may have predated the path integral formulation. Participants note the evolution of Dirac's editions, emphasizing the significance of his notation and insights on contact transformations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with Feynman's path integral formulation
  • Knowledge of Dirac notation and its applications
  • Basic grasp of complex numbers and their role in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research Feynman's path integral formulation in detail
  • Explore Dirac's "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics" editions
  • Study the implications of complex probabilities in quantum mechanics
  • Investigate contact transformations and their significance in physics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, quantum mechanics students, and researchers interested in the foundational theories of quantum mechanics and the historical context of complex probabilities.

arivero
Gold Member
Messages
3,481
Reaction score
187
I think that the lore on the need of having probability interference in quantum mechanics and then a complex probability originates in Feynman interpretation of space-time paths, whose probability is weighed with a complex exponential that approaches a dirac delta.

But I can not pinpoint a concrete source of this lore; perhaps it even predated the path integral. Any guesses?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
AFAIK Dirac mentioned it in 32. The Action Principle, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics.
 
Going to check, thanks. It makes sense because Feynman claims to have got is insight from Dirac, I think from some work on contact transformations. But also [I believe to remember that he told...] that he was unable to agree with Dirac on the significance.
 
I see, this is the third edition, that already uses Dirac notation:

1707148447124.png


Is it the same in the 1932 edition?
 
1930 you mean. It was the 1st edition, second came in 1935, third in 1947, and fourth and final in 1958. I don't have access to any of thr first two editions. Very rare in libraries.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K