Re: Basic QM Question
From: Arnold Neumaier (Arnold.Neumaier_at_univie.ac.at)
Date: 09/25/04
- Next message: alistair: "vacuum energy anomaly"
- Previous message: Sam Wormley: "Re: Feynman in "The pleasure of finding things out""
- In reply to: chris h fleming: "Basic QM Question"
- Next in thread: urs_at_lfa222122.richmond.edu: "Re: Basic QM Question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:00:04 +0000 (UTC)
chris h fleming wrote:
> Let's say we write down the Schroedinger equation for hydrogen. We
> then solve it and get among other things the pdf for the electron's
> orbit.
>
> My question is: why didn't I use the pdf of the electron as a form
> factor in the coulomb interaction. It seems like we start with a point
> particle for the interaction and then derive a pdf which contradicts
> the assumption.
>
> Is the calculation an apporoximation or is there some fundamental
> reason? (And can a reason be given without invoking QFT?)
The form factor is _not_ a proability distribution but a factor in the
effective Schroedinger or Dirac equation. Hence there is no contradiction.
Arnold Neumaier
- Next message: alistair: "vacuum energy anomaly"
- Previous message: Sam Wormley: "Re: Feynman in "The pleasure of finding things out""
- In reply to: chris h fleming: "Basic QM Question"
- Next in thread: urs_at_lfa222122.richmond.edu: "Re: Basic QM Question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|