Time in QM vs SR: Energy, Frequency & Motion

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the compatibility and reconciliation of quantum mechanics (QM) and special relativity (SR) in the context of energy, frequency, and motion. Participants explore how high-energy particles behave differently in these two frameworks, particularly regarding their wave functions and perceived motion.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that in QM, the energy operator is proportional to the time derivative, leading to higher energy particles having higher frequencies, which raises questions about their behavior in SR.
  • Another participant argues that QM is not a relativistic theory and that one should not expect it to reproduce SR results, emphasizing the need for relativistic QM or quantum field theory for such discussions.
  • A participant discusses the implications of plane wave solutions in QM, suggesting that a stationary observer would measure a fast-changing phase, while a comoving observer would see a frozen wave function.
  • There is a challenge regarding the treatment of mass in classical QM versus relativistic QM, with a participant asserting that mass is essential for ensuring Lorentz invariance in relativistic contexts.
  • One participant references the Klein-Gordon equation (KGE) as a fully relativistic framework that admits plane wave solutions, but another points out that it cannot be interpreted as a standard Schrödinger equation due to its second-order time derivative.
  • A question is raised about the implications of the KGE's second-order time derivative and its effect on probability density, prompting further clarification from another participant.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between QM and SR, with some asserting that they cannot be directly reconciled while others explore specific mathematical implications and interpretations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the compatibility of the two theories.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in classical QM's treatment of mass and energy, as well as the implications of second-order time derivatives in the KGE, which may affect interpretations of quantum states and probability densities.

TEFLing
Messages
237
Reaction score
22
In QM, the energy operator is proportional to the time derivative

E ~ d/dt

So higher energy particles have higher frequencies, i.e. their wave functions change more often per time than when at rest

But in SR, higher energy particles seem to exist in slow motion, appearing to age little

How are these theories compatible and reconcilable?

Do fast moving high energy particles change a lot per unit time as per QM

or freeze into slow motion as per SR ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First of all, QM is not a relatiistic theory so you should not expect it to reproduce SR results. The extension of QM is relativistic QM and quantum field theory.

Second, your inference about SR is wrong. If you look at a highly relativistic particle in relativistic QM, it has a very high frequency compared to a particle at rest. If you want to make a classical analogy, you cannot forget about the particle momentum, which also will contribute to the phase, i.e., take into account that the particle is moving in space as well as in time.
 
So you're saying that we look at the plane wave solutions

Psi ~ exp( i( px - hwt )/h )
~ exp( i( hkx - hwt )/h )

w/k --> c

So if you were stationary, and the wave function flew by, you'd measure fast changing phase

But comoving with the wave, you would see no change in phase
The planes of constant phase would be speeding through space
At the velocity of the particle

So surfing those waves
As it were
One would see a frozen. Wave function
As it were

?
 
No. The classical QM (just as classical mechanics) ignores the main contribution to particle energy, its mass. Now this is fine in a classical theory since it is only an overall phase factor (or a constant energy shift if you will), but it is essential in relativistic QM in order to ensure Lorentz invariance.
 
Yes, this does not contradict what I just said.
 
TEFLing said:
comoving with the wave, you would see no change in phase

Would you? Try writing down a plane wave solution to the Klein-Gordon equation with the mass ##m## positive in a frame comoving with the wave. What do you get?
 
From the link:
It cannot be straightforwardly interpreted as a Schrödinger equation for a quantum state, because it is second order in time and because it does not admit a positive definite conserved probability density.

What does the underlined mean exactly?
 
jerromyjon said:
What does the underlined mean exactly?

It means that the second time derivative appears instead of the first; ##\partial^2 \psi / \partial t^2## instead of ##\partial \psi / \partial t##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K