3
$\begingroup$

The time is treated differently in special relativity and quantum mechanics. What is the exact difference and why relativistic quantum mechanics (Dirac equation etc.) works?

$\endgroup$
6
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Er...time is treated differently in relativistic mechanics and non-relativistic quantum mechanics, but that is the same as saying that time is treated differently in relativistic and non-relativistic classical mechanics. $\endgroup$ Jul 15, 2011 at 2:04
  • $\begingroup$ Quantum mechanics doesn't per se imply relativity. $\endgroup$
    – Siyuan Ren
    Jul 15, 2011 at 3:18
  • $\begingroup$ The Schrödinger equation of non-relativistic QM is second order in the time derivative and is not Lorentz invariant. On the other hand, the Dirac equation is first order in the time derivative and is invariant under Lorentz transformations. So I think this is the main difference between non-relativistic and relativistic QM. In the latter, the time is treated in (almost) the same way as spatial coordinates. Also the spin is a relativistic effect because it emerges naturally only in relativistic QM. $\endgroup$
    – Andreas K.
    Jul 15, 2011 at 14:33
  • $\begingroup$ Dear @ANKU: Your above comment the Schrodinger equation of non-relativistic QM is second order in the time derivative was probably written in a bit of a hurry. :-) More importantly, is it possible to formulate the main question using precise terms? $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Jul 17, 2011 at 15:51
  • $\begingroup$ Oops, it's second order in the space and first order in time. But the point is this, we make it first order in space and time derivative so that it becomes Lorentz invariant. Right? $\endgroup$
    – Andreas K.
    Jul 18, 2011 at 2:12

2 Answers 2

3
$\begingroup$

Quantum mechanics can be reconciled with special relativity to make quantum field theory, but there are some awkward things going on in that marriage. SR treats time symmetrically with position, but in quantum mechanics, position is an operator and time isn't. Baez at UCR has a nice discussion of that here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/uncertainty.html

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Well, QFT reconciles this by disposing of the position as an operator. $\endgroup$
    – Marek
    Jul 19, 2011 at 20:18
  • $\begingroup$ And Dirac's approach (and Feynman's) makes time an "operator" (or equivalently an integration variable in the path integral). This answer is no more satisfying than saying "In classical mechanics, position is a function, and time is a parameter". That's true, but only if you choose to parametrize by time and not proper time. The same is true in quantum mechanics. $\endgroup$
    – Ron Maimon
    Aug 13, 2011 at 20:09
1
$\begingroup$

Time is always time. It is special. Another thing is its involvement in transformations of measured data from one reference system to another. This involvement does not change its meaning. In a given reference frame the time is unique and the space coordinates are multiple - according to the number of particles to be observed.

Concerning Dirac equation, it took some efforts to make it work after its invention. It works because it was made work, if you like. Besides, it depends what exactly do you mean by "relativistic QM". QED, for example, is rather difficult to make work. Its sensible results only appear at page 500 or so, when the infrared catastrophe is resolved.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.