is momentum relative?

[ydoaPs]

in the sense of mv, it would be. in qm would it be? i think it would, because the difference in time would make a period longer/shorter which would change the wavelength thereby changing the momentum.

 

in your frame of reference, do you have momentum? in classical physics, i would say no, but in qm, i would say yes.

 

if momentum is relative, does that make energy relative? wait, thats a stupid question: m=m/(1-(v^2)/(c^2)).

[reverse]

Isn't everything relative in QM?

Isn't that the main point?

[Johnny5]

in the sense of mv' date=' it would be. in qm would it be? i think it would, because the difference in time would make a period longer/shorter which would change the wavelength thereby changing the momentum.

 

in your frame of reference, do you have momentum? in classical physics, i would say no, but in qm, i would say yes.

 

if momentum is relative, does that make energy relative? wait, thats a stupid question: m=m/(1-(v^2)/(c^2)).[/quote']

 

It appears you basically have the idea.

 

I equate classical and quantum mechanical momentum, so I would say that momentum is relative in either case.

 

Regards

[Tom Mattson]

in the sense of mv' date=' it would be. in qm would it be? i think it would, because the difference in time would make a period longer/shorter which would change the wavelength thereby changing the momentum.

[/quote']

 

Momentum is relative (that is, dependent on one's state of motion) by definition. So it doesn't matter whether you are looking at classical or quantum mechanics.

 

in your frame of reference, do you have momentum? in classical physics, i would say no, but in qm, i would say yes.

 

No, by definition you would have no momentum in your own frame of reference. Of course, that means that your position is completely uncertain.

[Tom Mattson]

Isn't everything relative in QM?

Isn't that the main point?

 

No, it isn't. I think you're thinking relativity, not QM.

[reverse]

huh?

 

is QM not a subset of GR?

[Tom Mattson]

is QM not a subset of GR?

 

I know that. You asked if "everything is relative" is the point of QM. And I said "no, I think you're mistaking QM for SR".

[J.C.MacSwell]

huh?

 

is QM not a subset of GR?

 

Are the two not contradictory on some scale?

[reverse]

I know that. You asked if "everything is relative" is the point of QM. And I said "no, I think you're mistaking QM for SR".

 

 

Oh good,

because I thought somehow it was exempt.

[reverse]

Are the two not contradictory on some scale?

 

it's unlikley, but perhaps.....

 

What makes you think that they could contradict?

[J.C.MacSwell]

it's unlikley' date=' but perhaps.....

 

What makes you think that they could contradict?[/quote']

 

I thought (read fuzzy interpretation of what I have read) that GR did not make sense on small scales and quantum theory did not explain gravity.