Abstract Although special relativity and quantum mechanics revolutionised physics in the early 20th century, the consequences of combining these two theories are still being explored a hundred years later, usually using the formidable theoretical machinery of quantum field theory. However, a formalism accessible to undergraduates has been recently developed which shows how the centre of mass and internal dynamics of classical and quantum systems is relativistically coupled with interesting consequences. Here we explore some of the implications of this coupling, first classically, where we find that the dynamics of the system is time dilated when moving relative to another inertial frame. We then apply the dynamics to a quantum 2-level atom bound in a one-dimensional infinite potential well, and show that the coupling produces collapses and revivals in quantum interference. This example provides an illustration of how the combination of special relativity and quantum mechanics can be studied in situations familiar to most undergraduates.
Abstract Although special relativity and quantum mechanics revolutionised physics in the early 20th century, the consequences of combining these two theories are still being explored a hundred years later, usually using the formidable theoretical machinery of quantum field theory. However, a formalism accessible to undergraduates has been recently developed which shows how the centre of mass and internal dynamics of classical and quantum systems is relativistically coupled with interesting consequences. Here we explore some of the implications of this coupling, first classically, where we find that the dynamics of the system is time dilated when moving relative to another inertial frame. We then apply the dynamics to a quantum 2-level atom bound in a one-dimensional infinite potential well, and show that the coupling produces collapses and revivals in quantum interference. This example provides an illustration of how the combination of special relativity and quantum mechanics can be studied in situations familiar to most undergraduates.
Einstein's famous equation Erest=mc2 for the rest energy of a system with mass m requires that the internal energy of the system be included in m. Pursuing this idea using Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics yields a relativistic coupling between the center of mass motion and the internal dynamics of the system. Here we explore the consequences of this coupling, first classically, where we find that the dynamics of the system is time dilated when moving relative to another inertial frame. We then apply the dynamics to a quantum 2-level atom bound in a 1-dimensional infinite potential well, and show that the coupling produces collapses and revivals in quantum interference.
Einstein's famous equation Erest=mc2 for the rest energy of a system with mass m requires that the internal energy of the system be included in m. Pursuing this idea using Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics yields a relativistic coupling between the center of mass motion and the internal dynamics of the system. Here we explore the consequences of this coupling, first classically, where we find that the dynamics of the system is time dilated when moving relative to another inertial frame. We then apply the dynamics to a quantum 2-level atom bound in a 1-dimensional infinite potential well, and show that the coupling produces collapses and revivals in quantum interference.
Special relativity seems to be associated with linking physical relations as seen in one frame with those as seen in a frame moving at a speed relative to such a frame. A constant speed is often used for the moving frame. This suggests that classically there is a special frame for a particle with rest mass called a rest frame. In such a case, one simply introduces a parameter for rest mass and does not worry about the complicated motion and interactions which actually create the rest mass. It seems that even quantum mechanics, which considers a particle to be moving as one does not know its location, one uses the idea of a potential V(x) which in principle is associated with a very large rest mass, presumably at rest as no variables of such a rest mass appear in the Klein-Gordon or Dirac equations. It seems that one uses a preferred frame when solving relativistic quantum mechanical equations. Furthermore, given V(x) and a bound state with exp(-i E bound t), E applies to the overall bound system, not to a possible exp(ipx) constituent. The special relativistic invariant equation seems to exist at the system level, like with the rest mass and one may apparently calculate E in the special rest frame of the large mass and hence find a rest mass of the bound system, i..e large rest mass*cc + mo cc + E, mo is the rest mass of the single bound particle. As a result of the use of the special rest mass frame for the V(x) producing large rest mass, it seems that one does not have to worry about special relativistic constraints on the interaction with V(x), as only one frame is involved. In other words, a bound calculation is about finding a new rest mass for an overall new system. Then this system may be used in Lorentz boosts. One simplifies by working in the rest frame of the mass creating V(x). Perhaps surprisingly then, we note that exp(-iEt+ipx) for a free particle is Lorentz invariant and in fact must be Lorentz invariant for the following reason. Imagine that one wishes to create a probability for free particles which is linked with conservation of momentum. Any p must have the same real value weight because for free particles there is no bias for one p or the other. There is, however, a bias for a p1 and p2. It should have the same probability as a p3 and p4, if p1+p2 = p3+p4. (We use one dimension for simplicity.) As a result, exp(ip) seems to be a probability which respects these conditions. The problem is that one may have p=m1v1=m2v2 hence (E1,p) and (E2,p). With respect to momentum, it is irrelevant if one particle has E1 and the other E2, but not if one does a Lorentz boost. Then, in one case: p→ g(v) p + g(v) v E1 and in the second, p→ g(v) p + g(v)vE2. Here g(v) =1/sqrt(1-vv/cc). In other words, p is the same for each particle in one frame and not in the other which violates conservation of momentum because in frame 1 both particles can complete the same conservation of momentum equation, but in the second frame this is not the case, because each has a different momentum. Thus, exp(ip) cannot hold. One requires a linear form in p which is Lorentz invariant, i.e. exp(-iEt+ipx), we argue (and have done so in previous notes). We see now that momentum probability is linked with space in exp(ipx). The idea seems to be that for free colliding particles there is no preferred frame and the probabilities used must reflect this Lorentz invariance. As a result, we argue that a free particle probability in E,p arises because of Lorentz invariance, but then apply it to a V(x) problem and no longer worry about Lorentz invariance at the interaction level. V(x) with no associated rest mass variables assumes a rest frame for the V(x) producing mass. A Lorentz boost which then invalidates exp(ip), would only apply to the total rest mass of the bound particle system which has no overall momentum. It seems that one does apply the Lorentz transformation to the interaction of exp(ipx)’s with V(x). One is only interested in the overall bound system as a single entity for special relativity. As a result, one may only impose momentum considerations as V(x) is a spatial function and one must link it with exp(ipx). In fact, one may write V(x) = Sum over k Vk exp(ikx) to associate it with momentum hits linked with Vk energies, which already moves away from the idea of special relativity as Vk and k are not linked as a 4-vector. The idea of exp(ip1x)exp(i k1x) = exp(ip2x)exp(ik2x), however, seems to still hold (as it does for free particles), linking these two values (i.e. Vk1 and Vk2) with (p1+k)(p1+k) exp(i (p1+k)x). Lorentz invariance for a particle with rest mass seems to be linked with the idea that one ultimately has a rest frame for the particle. One then establishes a relation between the rest mass in one frame and its new E and p as seen by another frame. One does not, however, need to impose Lorentz invariance conditions on the interaction which creates the rest mass it seems. For example, exp(-iEt+ipx) is the Lorentz form used to describe a free particle, but exp(ipx) is the only portion used to describe its interaction with V(x) in the rest frame of the large mass creating V(x). Furthermore, exp(-iEt+ipx) ensures conservation of energy and p for a free particle, but in an interaction case, that does not happen as the potential may absorb energy.
One of the most profound and difficult problems of physics in the last century is the construction of a simple theory which unites the ideas of quantum mechanics and relativity. The concepts which are used in quantum mechanics related to the measurements of positions, momenta, energy and time, are the same concepts in terms of which the special relativistic postulates are formulated. Hence, it is at least possible to formulate the requirement of special relativistic invariance for quantum theories and to ascertain whether these requirements are satisfied. The fact that the answer is nearer to no than to yes, that quantum mechanics has not yet been fully adjusted to the postulates of the special theory, is perhaps irritating. In the general theory of relativity, the situation is different: the space-time coordinates are only auxiliary quantities to which arbitrary values for every event could be given. Hence, the measurement of position, that is, of the space coordin ates, is certainly not a significant measurement if the postulates of the general theory are adopted: any arbitrary value can be given to the coordinates. The same holds for momenta. The purpose of this brief paper is to make in principle some personal and particular remarks on the fundamental concepts of time and mass. Some comments about the consequences on the relativistic dynamics of quantum systems are also formulated.
Classical mechanics of a free particle is based on Newtonian mechanics and Lagrangian/Hamilton theories. A single frame of reference is chosen (the lab) and particles with the same mass mo (for example) moving at different velocities are considered in the free particle scenario (i.e in the absence of force (potentials)). We argue that the above is identical to considering a single particle with mass mo at time=to and x=0 viewed by various frames moving at different constant velocities -v. From the point of view of each frame, the particle moves at a velocity v. Thus the Newtonian picture of an mo particle moving at different speeds may be considered as a problem of special relativity. We argue (as in (1)) that (x,t)=(0,t) transforms to (x’,t’) such that x’/t’=v. If one uses a metric (1 0) (first row) (0 -1) second row, one may derive special relativistic relationships. In particular, one may obtain the Lorentz invariant -Et + px if (p,E) and (x,t) transform in the same manner. We argue that the relationships obtained from special relativity pertain to classical mechanics and so one may mathematically obtain a function L(v) such that p=dL/dv and E=pv - L for a free particle. In other words, special relativity governs Lagrangian results in the free particle case and is not really needed (in this special case). More importantly, it is special relativity which links E with t and p with x. As noted above, if one considers Netwonian mechanics in a single frame, the notion of special relativity does not arise, but the scaling of time by E and of x by p does i.e. A= -Et+px is the classical action both relativistically and nonrelativistically. It is just not written in this way usually (i.e. A = -mo t sqrt(1-vv) (c=1) relatiivstically and A =t .5mo vv nonrelativistically) We argued in (2) that scaling must manifest itself physically and that it accounts for the physical wavelength in quantum mechanics. We argue that the quantum mechanics of a free particle ultimately follows from special relativity. As a result, ideas of quantum mechanics would not have appeared in Newtonian mechanics nor Lagrangian or Hamiltonian theories. When special relativity was developed it focused on transformations related to different frames, but these are equivalent to describing one frame with many different velocities (same mo). Thus the physics in one frame is governed by special relativity even if it is nonrelativistic. We argue that the notion of the wavelength which appears even in the Schrodinger formalism follows from scaling of x by p which ultimately originates from special relativity. In other words, both the Lagrangian formalism and quantum mechanics follow from special relativity in the free particle case. We argue that free particle quantum mechanics is the starting point of overall quantum mechanics.
One of the concepts of Relativity theory that challenges conventional intuition the most is time dilation and length contraction. Usual approaches for describing relativistic effects in quantum systems merely postulate the consequences of these effects as physical constraints. Here, we propose to rebuild Special Relativity from quantum mechanical considerations. This is done by dropping one of its fundamental postulates: the universality of the speed of light. Lorentz transformations are obtained by a quantum mechanism. We use the fact that quantum states depend on the Galilean reference frame where they are defined. In other words, quantum states outside an observer's Galilean reference frame are distorted. Then, we show in a theorem the existence of time-dependent observables that are sensible to this distortion in such a way that their expectation value is a Lorentz-covariant function of time. We then postulate this mechanism as the source of the phenomena of Special Relativity. As a corollary of the main theorem, we show the existence of a Lorentz covariant momentum and mass operators which yield the relativistic momentum and mass. In this theory, the fundamental limit of the speed of light imposes a transparency condition for faster-than-light particles: they are allowed but they are not observable. The transparency effect could explain dark matter in a more general theory following this quantum formalism.