Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.

Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 2/10/25 7:12 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 1/28/25 3:21 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

Schrodinger's theory reigns in most cases and is much more simple to use
than Dirac's.

>
Correct, to lowest order.

>
Well, sort of (see below).
>

Spin can be handled by Pauli. (to lowest order)

>
Not really. The math of spin is the irreducible representations of the
Lorentz group -- that's inherently SR.

 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_equation>
 
You think that this needs a rewrite?

 
Not really, because it does not claim that relativity is not needed.
 
That page simply presents the Pauli matrices (etc.) without explanation.
That explanation, if given, would inherently involve SR, the notion that
all physical laws are Lorentz invariant, and spins are described by the
irreducible representations of the Lorentz group. Some links on that
page refer to discussions of spin, including its relationship to SR.

There is no need to. The Pauli equation just is,
and it does predict the correct atomic spectra,
to the order to which it is valid.
(with some care!)

On a historical note, you might remember
that the relativistic Dirac equation (1928) is a development
of Pauli's non-relativistic equation for electrons with spin,
(1924-1927) not the other way round.
Wikipedia is correct about it,

Jan