Why does Klein-Gordon's equation not obey quantum mechanics?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the Klein-Gordon equation and its relationship with quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on the implications of its second-order time derivative compared to the first-order time derivative in the Schrödinger equation. Participants explore the consequences of this difference, including issues related to probability conservation and the interpretation of the Klein-Gordon field.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the second-order time derivative in the Klein-Gordon equation leads to a lack of probability conservation, as indicated by Srednicki's assertion.
  • One participant questions how the time dependence in the norm of a state affects probability conservation and whether time-dependent probability distributions can still be conserved.
  • Another participant clarifies that the notation used in Srednicki's equation indicates that x represents a general spacetime point, which retains time dependence.
  • A participant argues that the statement "the Klein-Gordon equation does not obey quantum mechanics" is misleading, suggesting that the issue lies in the interpretation of the Klein-Gordon field rather than the equation itself.
  • It is proposed that the continuity equation for probability density and current does not hold in the same way for the Klein-Gordon equation as it does for the Schrödinger equation, due to the arbitrary nature of φ and its derivatives.
  • Historical context is provided, indicating that the initial belief in a relativistic single-particle quantum theory was flawed, leading to the reinterpretation of the Klein-Gordon equation as a field equation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the Klein-Gordon equation for quantum mechanics, with some agreeing on the issues of probability interpretation while others challenge the framing of the equation's relationship to quantum mechanics. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these interpretations.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations in interpreting the Klein-Gordon equation as a probability amplitude due to its second-order nature, which allows for negative probability densities, complicating the continuity equation typically expected in quantum mechanics.

Imanbk
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Hello Everyone,

I was reading in Srednicki's QFT book, Chapter 1 and he was explaining why the Klein-Gordon equation doesn't obey quantum mechanics. He said the fact that the time derivative is second order means it disobey's Shrodinger's equation which is first order in the time derivative. He continues to say that this might not seem important but it has significant consequences. One consequence is that the norm:

[tex]\langle \psi, t | \psi, t \rangle = \int d^{3}x \langle \psi, t | \bar x \rangle \langle \bar x | \psi, t \rangle = \int d^{3}x \psi^{*}(x)\psi(x)[/tex]

is not in general time-independent (This is equation 1.23 in Srednicki's for reference). Thus the probability is not conserved, and hence we conclude that quantum mechanics is not obeyed (because quantum mechanics tells us that probability is conserved).

I have three small questions here please. The first is how he got rid of the time dependence in the second equality above. My second question is how is the last equality time dependent? And finally my thrid question is why time dependence (in the norm of a state) implies probability is not conserved. What if probability is conserved at everytime, t, but the probability distribution is time dependent?

Thank you in adavance,
iman
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the equation you've copied from Srednicki, x (unbolded) is a general spacetime point, not just a spatial position [Srednicki uses bold-x to denote a pure spatial position, as in the middle expression]. So the right hand side still contains the time dependence.

If we want to interpret |psi(x, t)|^2 as a probability density, it must be that the probability of finding the particle *somewhere*, at any specific time t, is 1. So the integral of |psi(x, t)|^2, integrated over all space, must be 1, independent of t. If this isn't true then we can't interpret |psi(x, t)|^2 as a probability density.
 
Thank you very much for the wake-up call on the 4-vector notation!

Regarding the time-dependence, I understand the point made now, thank you. However, how would having an equation of motion which is first order in time solve this problem of the time dependence in the probability? Or, why does a second order derivative in time cause this problem.

Thank you again very much!
iman
 
iman, To say that the Klein-Gordon equation "does not obey quantum mechanics" is a bit misleading. What Srednicki meant to say was that the Schrödinger wavefunction ψ has certain properties, and the Klein-Gordon field φ cannot be interpreted as a single-particle probability amplitude since it does not share them.

For a probability interpretation, one would expect to find a continuity equation ∂ρ/∂t + ∇·J = 0, where ρ, J are the probability density and current respectively. For the Klein-Gordon equation the best we can do is

ρ = (iħ/2mc2)(φ* ∂φ/∂t - φ ∂φ*/∂t)
J = (-iħ/2m)(φ* φ - φ φ*)

And in fact using Eφ = iħ∂φ/∂t we get ρ = (E/mc2)φ*φ, which in the nonrelativistic limit reduces to the Schrödinger probability density φ*φ. However, due to the second-order nature of the Klein-Gordon equation, φ and ∂φ/∂t can be prescribed arbitrarily, meaning that ρ can just as well be negative. This rules out its interpretation as a probability density.

Accounts that follow the historical order of things make it sound as if the Klein-Gordon equation itself was to blame. Rather it was the mistaken assumption prevalent in the 1920's that a relativistic single-particle quantum theory was possible. In 1934, Pauli reinterpreted the K-G equation as a field equation and quantized it.
 
Last edited:
Bill_K, thank you very much for your explanation!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
385
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
658
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K