Timeline for Relating Quantum Mechanics to Classic Electromagnetism [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 3, 2014 at 18:49 | comment | added | anna v | Well, it does need knowledge of quantum field theory. The way I have summarized it in my head is that the photon wave function is a solution of a form ( potentials) of Maxell's equations where the differential equation is solved as a quantum mechanical one, operators acting on psi. Thus the photon in addition to the spin and the frequency (from E=h*nu) has also a phase information and information about the classical potential. An ensemble of photons then builds up the classical electromagnetic wave consistently to the classical solutions. | |
| Sep 3, 2014 at 16:49 | comment | added | user24082 | @annav I was trying to read through that, at your suggestion. Unfortunately, I didn't really know what was going on. | |
| Sep 3, 2014 at 16:28 | comment | added | anna v | There exists a blog post that treats this subject motls.blogspot.com/2011/11/… | |
| Sep 3, 2014 at 15:24 | history | closed |
ACuriousMind♦ Brandon Enright John Rennie Ali BMS |
Duplicate of How do you go from quantum electrodynamics to Maxwell's equations? | |
| Sep 3, 2014 at 15:04 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Sep 3, 2014 at 14:52 | answer | added | CuriousOne | timeline score: -3 | |
| Sep 3, 2014 at 14:26 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 3, 2014 at 15:24 | |||||
| Sep 3, 2014 at 7:17 | comment | added | Danu | @Anthony via SRT. The crucial point is that you cannot discuss particles in the sense that QM does it when you talk of relativistic interactions; particle number is simply not conserved because of mass-energy equivalence! | |
| Sep 3, 2014 at 7:05 | comment | added | yuggib | We go from quantum fields to classical fields. Roughly speaking, from creation/annihilation operators on the Fock space to functions belonging to a suitable functional space. See also this recent post. | |
| Sep 3, 2014 at 5:34 | comment | added | user24082 | Okay, but even so how do we go from speaking of particles to speaking of fields? | |
| Sep 3, 2014 at 5:07 | comment | added | Danu | Classical electrodynamics is Lorentz invariant, therefore any sensible underlying theory needs to be as well. Quantum mechanics alone is therefore not enough. QM + SRT, which pretty much means QFT, would be needed. | |
| Sep 3, 2014 at 4:39 | history | asked | user24082 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |