It is well-known that the coordinate as a continuous variable, consisting of a set of all points between 0 and $L$ contradicts the observability of measurement. In other words there might exist a fundamental length in nature, such as the Planck length $λ_P$, so that it is not possible to measure a position coordinate with accuracy smaller than this fundamental length. It is therefore necessary to investigate the formulation of quantum mechanics using only discrete variables as coordinates. To investigate all of quantum mechanics or any branch of physics from this approach is of course a daunting task and thus it is worthwhile to consider a specific simple problem in order to formulate the basic ideas. In this note we compare the solutions of Schrodinger equation for one-dimensional free particle under the usual space-time continuum with those that are obtained when space-time is assumed to be quantized using a simple model. For this purpose, we replace the derivatives occurring in Schrodinger equation with the corresponding discrete derivatives. We compute the probability density (and the probability current) under the two scenarios; they turn out to be quite different in the two cases. We also obtain the operator identity for the commutator $[p,x]^q$ under the assumption of quantized space-time and contrast it with the usual commutator $[p,x]$.
It is well-known that the coordinate as a continuous variable, consisting of a set of all points between 0 and L contradicts the observability of measurement. In other words there might exist a fundamental length in nature, such as the Planck length λP, so that it is not possible to measure a position coordinate with accuracy smaller than this fundamental length. It is therefore necessary to investigate the formulation of quantum mechanics using only discrete variables as coordinates. To investigate all of quantum mechanics or any branch of physics from this approach is of course a daunting task and thus it is worthwhile to consider a specific simple problem in order to formulate the basic ideas. In this note we compare the solutions of Schrodinger equation for one-dimensional free particle under the usual space-time continuum with those that are obtained when space-time is assumed to be quantized using a simple model. For this purpose, we replace the derivatives occurring in Schrodinger equation with the corresponding discrete derivatives. We compute the probability density (and the probability current) under the two scenarios; they turn out to be quite different in the two cases. We also obtain the operator identity for the commutator [p,x]q under the assumption of quantized space-time and contrast it with the usual commutator [p,x].
Studies of quantum fields and gravity suggest the existence of a minimal length, such as Planck length \cite{Floratos,Kempf}. It is natural to ask how the existence of a minimal length may modify the results in elementary quantum mechanics (QM) problems familiar to us \cite{Gasiorowicz}. In this paper we address a simple problem from elementary non-relativistic quantum mechanics, called "particle in a box", where the usual continuum (1+1)-space-time is supplanted by a space-time lattice. Our lattice consists of a grid of $\lambda_0 \times \tau_0 $ rectangles, where λ0, the lattice parameter, is a fundamental length (say Planck length) and, we take τ0 to be equal to λ0/c. The corresponding Schrodinger equation becomes a difference equation, the solution of which yields the q-eigenfunctions and q-eigenvalues of the energy operator as a function of $\lambda_0 $. The q-eigenfunctions form an orthonormal set and both q-eigenfunctions and q-eigenvalues reduce to continuum solutions as $ \lambda_0 \rightarrow 0 .$ The corrections to eigenvalues because of the assumed lattice is shown to be O(λ02). We then compute the uncertainties in position and momentum, Δx,Δp for the box problem and study the consequent modification of Heisenberg uncertainty relation due to the assumption of space-time lattice, in contrast to modifications suggested by other investigations such as \cite{Floratos}.
Classical mechanics traces a particle’s movement through space and time through x(t). For example, one may consider the case of a particle moving at constant speed (momentum p) in one direction or a particle bouncing back and forth at constant speed in a box. These problems are described in time and have direction and position associated with time etc. It is possible to define a probability P(x,t) in the classical picture based on delta time, the amount of time a particle spends in a little region of space dx. P(x,t), by itself, loses much relevant information present in the x(t) scenario because a particle moving to the right, or to the left, or bouncing back and forth all have the same probability, 1/L, where L is length. Furthermore, this probability is the same for all p (momentum) values. Thus a probability description, without extra information, is a subset of the relevant information in the problem. As a result, to describe the classical picture fully, one might say that a particle has a probability of 1/L, but also a mass mo and velocity +v (i.e. momentum mov nonrelativistically). For the particle bouncing back and forth in a box with constant p, one needs to give the initial position at time=0 and then a subsequent time (as well as the initial velocity and mo) in order to fully describe the problem, even though probability = 1/L. In the literature (see (1)), there have been many attempts to derive the quantum Schrodinger equation from a classical Fockker-Planck equation or a continuity equation (which follows from the Fokker-Planck equation as shown in (1)). The continuity equation contains a probability P(x,t) and a velocity(x,t) and is generally argued to represent classical physics. It does, if one retains appropriate classical conditions such as the discontinuity of density for a particle in a box (i.e. density=0 outside the box, but 1/L inside) and the notion of differing directions within the box. In fact, one may write density=W*(x,t)W(x,t) where W(x,t) is an ad hoc complex function and still retain compatibility with classical physics. If one does not, however, retain the classical conditions completely, nonclassical physics is introduced, even if density(x,t)=1/L. For example, in quantum mechanics density(x) is considered to be continuous in all x. Thus for a particle moving in a box, density outside the box is 0 so at the box wall it must also be 0. In the classical case, the density is 1 inside the box and 0 outside. There is a discontinuity classically and this cannot be changed and this contradicts the quantum mechanical picture. Thus quantum mechanics does not follow form classical Fokker-Planck or continuity equations which retain classical conditions.. Furthermore, because time is completely removed in the FP-continuity approach as applied to quantum mechanics, one cannot distinguish between forwards and backwards motion. As seen by the velocity field given in (1), v is zero for a bound particle which completely removes the sense of time and violates the classical physics conditions. It is, however, not zero for a particle moving in one direction. Thus there seems to be no issue in describing a Fokker-Planck-continuity equation as describing classical physics. One may even introduce density(x,t)= W*(x,t)W(x,t) provided one retains classical conditions allowing for discontinuity in density and different W(x,t) values at different times i.e. a discontinuity in W(x,t) at a box wall. If these conditions, however, are not met, then one no longer describes classical physics, but a new kind of physics (quantum physics). Thus one cannot argue that quantum mechanics follows from classical statistical Fokker-Planck-continuity equations. It may follow from these if one adds a set of extra conditions. Given these extra conditions, however, one could derive quantum mechanics without starting with classical density.
For systems which obey quantum mechanics, the formulation of the problem of treating large numbers of particles is, of course, somewhat different than it is for classical systems. The microscopic description of the system is provided by a wave function which (in the absence of spin) is a function of the classical coordinates { q i }. The mathematical model is provided by a Hamiltonian operator H which is often obtained from the corresponding classical Hamiltonian by the replacement p i → ( ħ /i)(∂/∂ q i ). In other cases the form of the Hamiltonian operator is simply postulated. The microscopic dynamics are provided by the Schrödinger equation i ħ (∂Ψ/∂ t ) = H Ψ which requires as initial condition the knowledge of the wave function Ψ({ q i }, t ) at some initial time t 0 . (Boundary conditions on Ψ({ q i }, t ) must be specified as part of the description of the model as well.) The results of experiments in quantum mechanics are characterized by operators, usually obtained, like the Hamiltonian, from their classical forms and termed observables. Operators associated with observables must be Hermitian. In general, the various operators corresponding to observables do not commute with one another. It is possible to find sets of commuting operators whose mutual eigenstates span the Hilbert space in which the wave function is confined by the Schrödinger equation and the boundary conditions. A set of such (time independent) eigenstates, termed ψ ν ( q ), is a basis for the Hilbert space.
In this work, we start from the problem of quantizing the relativistic Hamiltonian of a free massive particle (rest mass different from 0), a problem exceptionally difficult in the standard approaches to quantum mechanics. In fact, in tempered distribution state space, we find the natural way to define the relativistic Hamiltonian operator and its associated Schrödinger equation The existence of a linear continuous Hermitian operator associated with the Einstein's Hamiltonian of a free particle, defined on the entire tempered distribution space, automatically implies the conservation of Born probability flux (which doesn't mean the conservation of particles number, rather it implies the conservation of the total relativistic energy of the solution wave). We, then, deduce the continuity equation for the Born probability density and study some its different (but equivalent) expressions. We determine some possible forms of probability currents and flux velocity fields associated with the particle evolution. We provide the relativistic invariant expression for both Schrödinger equation and probability flux continuity equations.
In (1) it is shown how the Schrodinger equation can be “forced” in a sense to follow from the Fokker-Planck classical stochastic equation which contains a classical probability density. Other approaches in the literature which are similar use continuity equations and also a classical density. The key to all of these approaches is to assume, in an ad hoc manner it seems, that classical probability is equivalent to W*(x)W(x) where W(x) is a complex function called the wavefunction. In principle, one may write a density as W*(x)W(x). This is mathematically correct even if, for the sake of argument, it is ad hoc. The problem is that for a constant density (i.e. constant momentum and speed), one does not know if W(x)=exp(ipx) or W(x)=exp(-ipx). We consider here the arguments shown in (1). If a free particle has a density(x)=1/L, it may be associated with W(x) = exp(ipx)/sqrt(L). A free particle density, however, is associated with constant p (momentum) and assumes one knows x(t). If one considers the free particle to be trapped in a one-dimensional box with infinite potential walls, it travels to the right with p and then to the left with -p. The density(x) classically is 1/L, where L is the length of the box. The density is constant in time, but the direction of motion is a function of time. Thus, information is lost considering an equation such as the Fokker-Planck equation which uses a density function which does not track the direction of motion in time. In particular, writing density(x) = W*(x)W(x), which is done in (1) and applying this density to a bound particle in a box with infinite walls leads to an equation linear in W(x). Thus exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx) are both possible solutions if V(x)=0. Given that the conservation type equation obtained from the Fokker-Planck (or continuity) equation is linear in W, exp(ipx)+exp(-ipx) is a solution. Thus there is interference which leads to a density which does not match a constant classical density which should apply to a particle moving to the right and then to the left in a bound state because one assumed a classical picture a priori. Simply suggesting that density classical = W*(x)W(x) mathematically does not mean that the a priori classical picture may be dropped. As a result, we argue that there exists a contradiction in approaches which write classical density as W*(x)W(x) and then obtain the Schrodinger equation. As a remedy, we suggest that W(x) does not follow from a theory of classical density=W*(x)W(x), but vice versa. One needs equation which deal with W(x) a priori, and once it is found, one may create a classical density through W*(x)W(x).
Abstract The uncertainty principle is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics, but its exact mathematical expression cannot obtain correct results when used to solve theoretical problems such as the energy levels of hydrogen atoms, one-dimensional deep potential wells, one-dimensional harmonic oscillators, and double-slit experiments. Even after approximate treatment, the results obtained are not completely consistent with those obtained by solving Schrödinger’s equation. This indicates that further research on the uncertainty principle is necessary. Therefore, using the de Broglie matter wave hypothesis, we quantize the action of an elementary particle in natural coordinates and obtain the quantization condition and a new deterministic relation. Using this quantization condition, we obtain the energy level formulas of an elementary particle in different conditions in a classical way that is completely consistent with the results obtained by solving Schrödinger’s equation. A new physical interpretation is given for the particle eigenfunction independence of probability for an elementary particle: an elementary particle is in a particle state at the space-time point where the action is quantized, and in a wave state in the rest of the space-time region. The space-time points of particle nature and the wave regions of particle motion constitute the continuous trajectory of particle motion. When an elementary particle is in a particle state, it is localized, whereas in the wave state region, it is nonlocalized.