Why The Schrodinger Equation Fails at Relativity

Why did Schrodinger go through with a non-relativistic quantum mechanics, when special relativity was published twenty years before the Schrodinger equation? And how do we know the Schrodinger equation is in fact, non-relativistic?

Klein-Gordon Derivation:

[jibran]

Lvl 1 crook : Schrodinger
Lvl 100 Boss : Dirac
*THAT'S HOW QUANTUM MECHANICS WORKS*

[marcusrosales]

Huh? Did I just get assigned homework?

[EpicMathTime]

You are going to be an incredible lecturer and physicist.

[dibidus]

Why am I watching Wolverine's lost brother talk about quantum mechanics at 1 am?
We may never know.

[alexp]

Do you hype yourself up before saying, “What’s going on smart people”? It’s always on point.

[Shanksdan]

Glad to have stumbled upon your channel. Physics is really all about asking yourself why something is wrong/ right and actually calculating the answer by yourself (and of course, coming up with a hand waving argument before ).

[hotlinkster]

The first time a youtube recommendation has actually been good. Subscribed!

[WesSlEy]

I’m proud of myself for being able to keep up with all the calculus going on here

[williamky]

The only explanation my lecturers give us was SE doesn’t treat spacetime on equal footing, KG and Dirac does

Nice to see some more detailed explanations

[Ricocossa]

5:06 This is why we often express vectors of the holonomic basis as ∂i, since there is really an equivalence between vectors and directional derivatives as well as how vectors and partial derivatives transform.

In good old flat space this is just a curiosity, but this is crucial in Riemannian geometry where you want to define a tangent space without an embedding. The tangent space can be defined as some abstract vector space made out of directional derivative operators.

[ElSachinoo]

Nice! Another pre-maths observation: The Schrodinger equation (for a free particle) has a fixed mass value, which is also a relativistic red flag. Another decent exercise: Showing the Schrodinger equation is invariant under Galilean transformations - this also lets you see that mass defines a superselection variable in nonrelativistic QM ('Bargmann mass superselection rule').

[LakersSocal]

I swear physics should also count as a second language.🐈🤯

[Wecoc]

1:34 You know this is fucked up when even the Unicode missing letter square is a parameter on your equations

[thebigoeuph]

For my class that I TA'd for, we actually did that as an extra credit assignment...

[ThimbaDM]

My god this looks and sounds so tough. I going through high school, studying mathematics and physics and I'm about to apply for a university and try to get my masters in medical physics. Feels like I have a long way to go when I compare my high school material to this.

Oh well.. I'm not afraid of hard work.

[featherinescat]

In anime world, mentioning Schrodinger will make you smart

[commaspace]

You could've made this way easier by approximating the whole thing to be 3.1

[materiasacra]

Instead of working out the coordinate transformation, one can glance briefly at the equation itself. It expresses the non-relativistic relation between total, kinetic and potential energy in the operator form required by Quantum Mechanics: E = p^2/2m + V. This is essentially different from the relation in Special Relativity. Done.

[argentinephenomenologist]

I like the initial explanation, and I love the fact that there's so much I'll get the chance to learn in some time to understand the following part. Greetings!

[yenco]

Grandioso encontrar un canal así
y con tanta naturalidad