- #1
Karlisbad
- 131
- 0
Does the "Equivalence principle" holds in QM.
If we know that in QM under an "small" height so [tex] z<< R_{earth} [/tex] (radius of the earth) so the QM equation is (SE):
[tex] -D^{2}\Phi (z) +2m^{2}gz\Phi (z) =2mE_{n} \Phi (n) [/tex]
SO the wave function is just a "Airy function" and [tex] | \Phi (z) |^{2} [/tex] is an "intensity" near a caustic (then does it means that the problem of "gravity" is somehow related to optics ??)
- from the ODE above , we can guess that in QM "galileo was wrong", sice a Hamer and a feather won't fall at the same speed (If Bohmian mechanics is right you get the same answer due to the "Bohmian potential" )
- Then, was Einstein Wrong?, in the sense that inertial and gravitational mass are not the same ? Ehrenfrest's theorem produces:
[tex] \frac{<F_g >}{<a_g>}= \frac{<F_i>}{<a_i>} [/tex]
but only as a "mean value" in the practice perhaps in an experiment you could get different inertial and gravitational masses due to QM effect, then how does it affect to GR?.
If we know that in QM under an "small" height so [tex] z<< R_{earth} [/tex] (radius of the earth) so the QM equation is (SE):
[tex] -D^{2}\Phi (z) +2m^{2}gz\Phi (z) =2mE_{n} \Phi (n) [/tex]
SO the wave function is just a "Airy function" and [tex] | \Phi (z) |^{2} [/tex] is an "intensity" near a caustic (then does it means that the problem of "gravity" is somehow related to optics ??)
- from the ODE above , we can guess that in QM "galileo was wrong", sice a Hamer and a feather won't fall at the same speed (If Bohmian mechanics is right you get the same answer due to the "Bohmian potential" )
- Then, was Einstein Wrong?, in the sense that inertial and gravitational mass are not the same ? Ehrenfrest's theorem produces:
[tex] \frac{<F_g >}{<a_g>}= \frac{<F_i>}{<a_i>} [/tex]
but only as a "mean value" in the practice perhaps in an experiment you could get different inertial and gravitational masses due to QM effect, then how does it affect to GR?.