Relativistic Observables

The time-dependence of wave packets moving according to the Dirac equation usually cannot be determined explicitly. In order to get a qualitative description of the relativistic kinematics of a free particle, we investigate the temporal behavior of the standard position operator. With Ho being the free Dirac operator, we consider (assuming, for simplicity, h = l from now on) 

The velocity operator is usually defined as the time-derivative of the position operator. In nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, the velocity is equal to (mass times) momentum and hence a constant of motion - in agreement with Newton s second law which characterizes the free motion by a constant velocity. In relativistic quantum mechanics, however, we find 

1) The operator aj t) is unitarily equivalent to the Dirac matrix aj and hence it has the eigenvalues 1. A measurement of the (component j of the) velocity at any time t therefore can only give the results c. It appears as if Dirac particles can only move with the velocity of light. 

2) The components of the velocity operator ca do not commute. Hence there are no states for which the values of all components of the velocity can be predicted. The commutator is 

The uncertainties of aj and are therefore related to the expectation value of the spin-component in the third direction  

---

For the time being, let us accept the tentative interpretation deseribed above and proceed to investigate the consequences. There is, however, a considerable amount of literature concerning the right choice of relativistic observables and alternative position operators. This discussion was particularly intense approximately during the third quarter of the twentieth century, and it did not really come to a final conclusion. In order to distinguish x from other possible choices, we call the multiplication operator x the standard position operator. 

One question, however, cannot be avoided completely. It is again that of relativistic observables. In view of this interpretation, only an observable that leaves the subspace of positive energy invariant, is a good observable. With r/) e pos we should also require that Atp G pos, otherwise a measurement of the observable A would throw the state out of the electronic Hilbert space. 

An Extended (Sufficiency) Criterion for the Vanishing of the Tensorial Field Observability of Molecular States in a Hamiltonian Formalism An Interpretation Lagrangeans in Phase-Modulus Formalism A. Background to the Nonrelativistic and Relativistic Cases Nonreladvistic Electron... 

In the same section, we also see that the source of the appropriate analytic behavior of the wave function is outside its defining equation (the Schibdinger equation), and is in general the consequence of either some very basic consideration or of the way that experiments are conducted. The analytic behavior in question can be in the frequency or in the time domain and leads in either case to a Kramers-Kronig type of reciprocal relations. We propose that behind these relations there may be an equation of restriction, but while in the former case (where the variable is the frequency) the equation of resh iction expresses causality (no effect before cause), for the latter case (when the variable is the time), the restriction is in several instances the basic requirement of lower boundedness of energies in (no-relativistic) spectra [39,40]. In a previous work, it has been shown that analyticity plays further roles in these reciprocal relations, in that it ensures that time causality is not violated in the conjugate relations and that (ordinary) gauge invariance is observed [40]. 

Predict the structure and frequencies for this compound using two or more different DFT functionals and the LANL2DZ basis set augmented by diffuse functions (this basis set also includes effective core potentials used to include some relativistic effects for K and Cs). How well does each functional reproduce the observed spectral data ... 

There is no unitpie articulable law or set of laws that any observer contained in the universe Q can const.ruct even in principle that describes it exactly. It therefore behooves us to develop a primal physics P that is maximally relativistic not in a gcnerically Einsteinian sense, but in an informational sense. That is, to develop a physics in which the meaning of any object or process exists only relative to something (ideally, everything) else. 

P should also minimize distinction.s between conventionally distinct but atomic. primitives (such as space, mass, time, etc.). The vision is to take one more step along the metaphoric road remove jnan from the center of the universe —> remove all privileged frames of reference —> remove all absolutes —> remove all distinction between space and matter—r remove all distinction ( ) Start by eliminating the tacit assumption that whatever physics is self-organizing itself out of the soup of the current crop of physicists is the physics of this universe in short, go from a solipsistic phys-ics to a fundamentally relativistic physics, wherein even physics itself becomes a set (an infinite hierarchical set ) of self-consistent world-views rather than a prescribed set of exactly/uniquely prescribed laws operating independently of all observers. 

Consider next the relativistic invariance of quantum electrodynamics. Again, loosely speaking, we say that quantum electrodynamics is relativistically invariant if its observable consequences are the same in all frames connected by an inhomogeneous Lorentz transformation a,A ... 

The previous results become somewhat more transparent when consideration is given to the manner in which matrix elements transform under Lorentz transformations. The matrix elements are c numbers and express the results of measurements. Since relativistic invariance is a statement concerning the observable consequences of the theory, it is perhaps more natural to state the requirements of invariance as a requirement that matrix elements transform properly. If Au(x) is a vector field, call... 

Rate of change of observables, 477 Ray in Hilbert space, 427 Rayleigh quotient, 69 Reduction from functional to algebraic form, 97 Regula fold method, 80 Reifien, B., 212 Relative motion of particles, 4 Relative velocity coordinate system and gas coordinate system, 10 Relativistic invariance of quantum electrodynamics, 669 Relativistic particle relation between energy and momentum, 496 Relativistic quantum mechanics, 484 Relaxation interval, 385 method of, 62 oscillations, 383 asymptotic theory, 388 discontinuous theory, 385 Reliability, 284... 

In an effort to better understand the differences observed upon substitution in carvone possible changes in valence electron density produced by inductive effects, and so on, were investigated [38, 52]. A particularly pertinent way to probe for this in the case of core ionizations is by examining shifts in the core electron-binding energies (CEBEs). These respond directly to increase or decrease in valence electron density at the relevant site. The CEBEs were therefore calculated for the C=0 C 1 orbital, and also the asymmetric carbon atom, using Chong s AEa s method [75-77] with a relativistic correction [78]. 

Synchrotron radiation provides a convenient source of tunable VUV and SXR radiation. Natural synchrotron radiation, emitted by relativistic electrons, is linearly polarized in the plane of their orbit, which is traditionally the configuration used to collect the radiation. However, it is well known that the polarization becomes elliptical if observed above or below the plane of the orbit. 

The experimentally observed isomer shift, (5exp, includes a relativistic contribution, which is called second-order Doppler shift, sod> and which adds to the genuine isomer shift d. 

The electron density i/ (0)p at the nucleus primarily originates from the ability of s-electrons to penetrate the nucleus. The core-shell Is and 2s electrons make by far the major contributions. Valence orbitals of p-, d-, or/-character, in contrast, have nodes at r = 0 and cannot contribute to iA(0)p except for minor relativistic contributions of p-electrons. Nevertheless, the isomer shift is found to depend on various chemical parameters, of which the oxidation state as given by the number of valence electrons in p-, or d-, or /-orbitals of the Mossbauer atom is most important. In general, the effect is explained by the contraction of inner 5-orbitals due to shielding of the nuclear potential by the electron charge in the valence shell. In addition to this indirect effect, a direct contribution to the isomer shift arises from valence 5-orbitals due to their participation in the formation of molecular orbitals (MOs). It will be shown in Chap. 5 that the latter issue plays a decisive role. In the following section, an overview of experimental observations will be presented. 

In this way it was shown that the opt values derived from data for MCl, MFi, and MFg species gave excellent correlations with the occupation number, q, and that the n -<-75 (ys) peak positions could be well reproduced using Eqs. 5 (7) and 5 (2), with spin-orbit corrections. In all cases the correlations were significantly better when the relativistic terms were included than when they were omitted, and in Table 30 we list the xopt and oPt values derived from the 5 d data for MFg, MFg, and MF6 complexes. In the Table we also show the observed and the calculated band positions using the corrected forms of Eqs. 5 (7) and 5 (2). Once again the xopt vs. q plots yield slopes in excellent agreement with the ( —ri) values deduced from these equations. Finally, in Figs. 16... 

---