0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Never heard of that Bill.

Somewhere, I no longer remember where, I read that QM requires a universal time that could be synchronized across the Universe.Is this right? If so, why?

Quote from: Colin Never heard of that Bill.I seem to remember that in another "universe" it was you who said Pete was my best bet for an answer on that one. []

Lightarrow, can that be taken as saying that originally QT had a universal time, but later "incarnations" introduced a relative aspect to time, so that there is no longer a universal time requirement?

Space and timeIn classical mechanics and non-relativistic QM, time is an absolute quantity: all observers and particles can always agree on, "ticking away" in the background independent of space. Thus in non-relativistic QM one has for a many particle system ψ(r1, r2, r3, ..., t, σ1, σ2, σ3...).In relativistic mechanics, the spatial coordinates and coordinate time are not absolute; any two observers moving relative to each other can measure different locations and times of events. The position and time coordinates combine naturally into a four-dimensional spacetime position X = (ct, r) corresponding to events, and the energy and 3-momentum combine naturally into the four momentum P = (E/c, p) of a dynamic particle, as measured in some reference frame, change according to a Lorentz transformation as one measures in a different frame boosted and/or rotated relative the original frame in consideration. The derivative operators, and hence the energy and 3-momentum operators, are also non-invariant and change under Lorentz transformations.

That can't possibly mean that the same scenario calculated using relativistic and non-relativistic QM would give different answers, and that they would both be right; or can it?