2
$\begingroup$

I was reading the Schrodinger's famous 1926 paper, and he introduces his Schrodinger's equation as a real second-order in time equation (I modified it a bit) $$ \partial_t^2 \psi = - \hat{H}^2 \psi,\tag{1} $$ where $\hat{H}$ is the usual Hamiltonian $\hat{H}=\frac{\hat{p}^2}{2 m}+V(r)$. The complex first-order version of this equation is rather a trick, used to find the real solution (notice, solution to $i\partial \psi=\hat{H}\psi$ is also a solution to Eq. 1).

When modeling quantum systems, we always use the first order complex equation, because it is simpler, and the Born rule looks nice there. But can be that the actual quantum equation is the second order real equation and all the complex stuff is just a mathematical trick? Notice, we can always make a second order real equation out of the first order complex Shroedinger equation, but the reverse does not seem to be necessarily true. Are we missing anything by sticking with the first order complex equation, similar to how one would lack understanding of open quantum systems, if avoided dealing with density matrices and worked only with the wave functions?

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Would you accept as a premise that time evolution of the state is given by the action of a unitary operator? $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 27, 2021 at 1:54
  • $\begingroup$ The requirement of unitary evolution is usually motivated by the total probability $|\psi|^2$ being preserved. The equation for probabilities, though, relies on the specific assumption of the Born rule being valid. In the case of equation (1) Born rule would have to be modified to something more complex. Since eq. (1) is an equation for a bunch of coupled harmonic oscillators, my guess would be that probability is going to be the Kinetic+Potential energy, i.e. $(\partial_t\psi)^2+\langle \psi|\hat{H}^2|\psi\rangle$ $\endgroup$
    – Pavlo. B.
    Commented Apr 27, 2021 at 2:29
  • $\begingroup$ In other words, no, I do not accept unitary evolution (which would ruin the whole endeavor). But I accept local evolution of probabilities (i.e. change of probability in one place does not influence probability in a far away place). Probability definition could depend on the Hamiltonian and time derivatives of the wave function, but must be defined locally. $\endgroup$
    – Pavlo. B.
    Commented Apr 27, 2021 at 2:32
  • $\begingroup$ If you do not accept the premise of QM, which is equivalent to your assertions about the Born rule, you should clarify what framework you wish to work in. I note the premise of QM (again, essentially your statements about the Born rule) come before the Schro eq as they are just statements about the mathematical setup of the problem Your proposed "modified" Born rule, for example, is not consistent with the idea of a Hilbert space of states. With no structure, of course basically any PDE can give "time evolution." This is the case already in classical mechanics. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 27, 2021 at 5:16
  • $\begingroup$ I should add, it is fine to question why we should want to work with a Hilbert space and so on, but I think that would be beyond the scope of the question posed here, and there are other questions on this site (and elsewhere) about such foundational things already. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 27, 2021 at 5:18

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

The problem of equation (1) is the difficulty of introducing probability. In regular quantum mechanics one of the ways to get probability is from the symmetry of the effective Lagrangian $$ L=i\psi^{\dagger}\partial_t \psi-\psi^{\dagger}\hat{H}\psi. $$ Here $\psi=(\psi_1,\psi_2,....)$ and $\psi^{\dagger}=(\psi^*_1,\psi^*_2,....)$, where $\psi^*_1, \psi^*_2,... $ are new auxiliary variables, independent of $\psi_1,\psi_2,...$. Under the symmetry $\psi\rightarrow\psi e^{i\alpha}$, $\psi^{\dagger}\rightarrow\psi^{\dagger} e^{-i\alpha}$ such Lagrangian generates a conserved quantity

$$Q=\psi^\dagger\psi,$$ which we associate with probability.

Doing a similar trick with the Eq. (1) yields a very different result. The Lagrangian in this case is $$ L=\partial_t\psi^{\dagger}\partial_t \psi-\psi^{\dagger}\hat{H}^2\psi. $$ The corresponding conserved quantity due to the phase symmetry is $$ Q=i(\psi^{\dagger}\partial_t \psi-\partial_t \psi^{\dagger} \psi), \tag{2} $$ which can be positive or negative. What is worse, for all real $\psi$ it is zero. In other words, $Q$ cannot be probability!

In the comments to the OP there was a suggestion that since the equation of motion (1) corresponds to a collection of coupled oscillators, may be the "energy" of such system (kinetic+potential), $$ Q=\partial_t \psi^{\dagger}\partial_t\psi+ \psi^{\dagger}\hat{H}^2\psi, $$ could be associated with probability. The problem with this attempt is that if Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ depends on time, the "energy" (and therefore the corresponding probability) will not be conserved, which, in turn, would make non-local evolution of probability possible.

$\endgroup$

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.