Skip to main content
Physics

Return to Question

added standard quantum mechs
Source Link
gemmima
gemmima
  • 133
  • 7

Why do we not use the Schrödinger equation/standard QM to describe phonons (or other quasi particles)?

We were just taught about phonons in solid state physics class. Last year we did QM and now we are starting QFT as well.

Phonons are excitations of a condensed matter field. I thought that we would be using the Schrödinger equation (SE), but no. It is also nowhere in the syllabus. I read questions on this site about using the Schrödinger equation for quantum fields and many answers say that the SE describes particles without any spin, but the phonon is spin zero. Why can we not use the SE foror normal (no relativity) QM and for phonons and if I'm wrong and you can, then how?

Why do we not use the Schrödinger equation to describe phonons (or other quasi particles)?

We were just taught about phonons in solid state physics class. Last year we did QM and now we are starting QFT as well.

Phonons are excitations of a condensed matter field. I thought that we would be using the Schrödinger equation (SE), but no. It is also nowhere in the syllabus. I read questions on this site about using the Schrödinger equation for quantum fields and many answers say that the SE describes particles without any spin, but the phonon is spin zero. Why can we not use the SE for phonons and if I'm wrong and you can, then how?

Why do we not use the Schrödinger equation/standard QM to describe phonons (or other quasi particles)?

We were just taught about phonons in solid state physics class. Last year we did QM and now we are starting QFT as well.

Phonons are excitations of a condensed matter field. I thought that we would be using the Schrödinger equation (SE), but no. It is also nowhere in the syllabus. I read questions on this site about using the Schrödinger equation for quantum fields and many answers say that the SE describes particles without any spin, but the phonon is spin zero. Why can we not use the SE or normal (no relativity) QM and for phonons and if I'm wrong and you can, then how?

Copy edited (e.g. ref. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics>, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory>, and <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation>). Introduced abbr. "SE".
Source Link
Peter Mortensen
Peter Mortensen
  • 2.4k
  • 2
  • 19
  • 25

Why do we not use the SchrodingerSchrödinger equation to describe phonons (or other quasi particles)?

We were just taught about phonons in solid state physics class and last. Last year we did QMQM and now we are starting QFTQFT as well. 

Phonons are excitations of a condensed matter field. I thought that we would be using the SchrodingerSchrödinger equation (SE), but no. It is also nowhere in the syllabus. I read questions on this site about using the SchrodingerSchrödinger equation for quantum fields and many answers say that the SE describes particles with nowithout any spin, but the phonon is spin zero. Why can we not use the SE for phonons and if I'm wrong and you can, then how?

Why do we not use the Schrodinger equation to describe phonons (or other quasi particles)?

We were just taught about phonons in solid state physics class and last year we did QM and now we are starting QFT as well. Phonons are excitations of condensed matter field. I thought that we would be using the Schrodinger equation but no. It is also nowhere in the syllabus. I read questions on this site about using the Schrodinger for quantum fields and many answers say that the SE describes particles with no spin but the phonon is spin zero. Why can we not use the SE for phonons and if I'm wrong and you can, then how?

Why do we not use the Schrödinger equation to describe phonons (or other quasi particles)?

We were just taught about phonons in solid state physics class. Last year we did QM and now we are starting QFT as well. 

Phonons are excitations of a condensed matter field. I thought that we would be using the Schrödinger equation (SE), but no. It is also nowhere in the syllabus. I read questions on this site about using the Schrödinger equation for quantum fields and many answers say that the SE describes particles without any spin, but the phonon is spin zero. Why can we not use the SE for phonons and if I'm wrong and you can, then how?

Tweeted twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1499036816049065988
Became Hot Network Question
edited tags
Source Link
Qmechanic ♦
Qmechanic ♦
  • 212.9k
  • 48
  • 589
  • 2.3k

We were just taught about phonons in solid state physics class and last year we did QM and now we are starting QFT as well. Phonons are excitations of condensed matter field. I thought that we would be using the Schrodinger equation but no. It is also nowhere in the syllabus. I read questions on this site about using the Schrodinger for quantum fields and many answers say that the SE describes particles with no spin but the phonon is spin zero. Why can we not use the SE for phonons and if I'm wrong and you can, then how? Thanks for your help.

We were just taught about phonons in solid state physics class and last year we did QM and now we are starting QFT as well. Phonons are excitations of condensed matter field. I thought that we would be using the Schrodinger equation but no. It is also nowhere in the syllabus. I read questions on this site about using the Schrodinger for quantum fields and many answers say that the SE describes particles with no spin but the phonon is spin zero. Why can we not use the SE for phonons and if I'm wrong and you can, then how? Thanks for your help.

We were just taught about phonons in solid state physics class and last year we did QM and now we are starting QFT as well. Phonons are excitations of condensed matter field. I thought that we would be using the Schrodinger equation but no. It is also nowhere in the syllabus. I read questions on this site about using the Schrodinger for quantum fields and many answers say that the SE describes particles with no spin but the phonon is spin zero. Why can we not use the SE for phonons and if I'm wrong and you can, then how?

edited tags
Link
Sandejo
Sandejo
  • 5.5k
  • 1
  • 23
  • 43
Source Link
gemmima
gemmima
  • 133
  • 7