Abstract The problem of time is a notable obstacle towards the recognition of quantum theory as the ultimate fundamental description of nature. Quantum theory may not be complete if founded upon classical notions. Louis de Broglie, seeming to be more or less convinced about the ontology of his proposed matter waves, tried to develop a theory of sub-quantum degrees of freedom relying on statistical thermodynamics. He realized a quantum particle as a fluctuating dense corpuscle formed via non-linear effects from a sub-quantum medium. A wave on the medium guides the vibrating corpuscle. He argued that an intrinsic clock of a quantum particle is related to its Brownian motion at the sub-quantum level. This led him to conjecture a relation between the de Broglie clock frequency mc 2 / h and its implicit temperature, which equals that of the surrounding sub-quantum medium. About the same time, Mandelbrot was the first to derive in a classical setting a thermodynamic uncertainty relation between energy and temperature, that was, coincidentally or not, anticipated by Bohr and Heisenberg in the first years of development of quantum theory. We show here that, when the de Broglie temperature–time conjecture is assumed, the thermodynamic temperature–energy uncertainty relation leads to the quantum time–energy uncertainty relation.
Abstract The problem of time is a notable obstacle towards the recognition of quantum theory as the ultimate fundamental description of nature. Quantum theory may not be complete if founded upon classical notions. Louis de Broglie, seeming to be more or less convinced about the ontology of his proposed matter waves, tried to develop a theory of sub-quantum degrees of freedom relying on statistical thermodynamics. He realized a quantum particle as a fluctuating dense corpuscle formed via non-linear effects from a sub-quantum medium. A wave on the medium guides the vibrating corpuscle. He argued that an intrinsic clock of a quantum particle is related to its Brownian motion at the sub-quantum level. This led him to conjecture a relation between the de Broglie clock frequency mc 2 / h and its implicit temperature, which equals that of the surrounding sub-quantum medium. About the same time, Mandelbrot was the first to derive in a classical setting a thermodynamic uncertainty relation between energy and temperature, that was, coincidentally or not, anticipated by Bohr and Heisenberg in the first years of development of quantum theory. We show here that, when the de Broglie temperature–time conjecture is assumed, the thermodynamic temperature–energy uncertainty relation leads to the quantum time–energy uncertainty relation.
Abstract Quantum thermodynamics describes dynamic processes by means of the operators of entropy production P and time t . P and t do not commute. It exists the non-vanishing t–P commutator [ t , P ]=ik. Here the Boltzmann constant k has the physical meaning of a quantum of entropy. The t–P commutator immediately leads us to the t–P uncertainty relation ΔtΔP≥k/2. Hence the observables t and P are not sharply defined simultaneously. Similar uncertainty relations can also be expected for other pairs of conjugate variables with products of the physical meaning of an entropy. The free energy F and the reciprocal temperature (1/T) are the respective conjugate variables of an isolated system of many particles, which leads us to the F–(1/T) uncertainty relation ǀΔFǁΔ(1/T)ǀ≥k/2. It can be traced back to the t–P uncertainty relation mentioned above. In this way the Helmholtz free energy F and the temperatur T are introduced into quantum thermodynamics. The uncertainties ǀΔFǀ→0 and ǀΔTǀ→0 are negligible at low temperatures T→0, and quantum thermodynamics turns into the time-independent classical thermodynamics. Against this the uncertainties ǀΔFǀ→∞ and ǀΔTǀ→∞ grow unlimited at high temperatures T→∞, and classical thermodynamics loses its sense. In the limit of one particle the uncertainties cannot be neglected even at low temperatures. However a detailed discussion shows that the free energy f of a single particle vanishes within the whole range of temperatures T. This defines the particle entropy σ=ε/T=ak. The dimensionless entropy number a connects the particle energy ε=akT with the temperature T. The entropy number a of a single (s) independent particle can be calculated with the extended, temperature-dependent Schrödinger equation A s φ=aφ. Here A s=−(Λ 2/4π)∇2 means the dimensionless entropy operator describing the entropy number a and thus the particle entropy σ=ak. Λ is the thermal de Broglie wave length. Finally we calculate by means of quantized particle entropies σ the internal energy E, the Helmholtz free energy F, the entropy S, the chemical potential μ, and the equation of state of an ideal gas of N monatomic free particles in full agreement with classical thermodynamics. We also calculate the partition function q=V/Λ 3 of a single free particle within the volume V. Here Λ 3 is a small volume element taking into account the wave–particle dualism of a single free particle of mass m at temperature T. Extension to a system of N free particles leads us to a simple geometrical model and to the conclusion that an ideal gas of independent particles becomes instable below a critical temperature T C. T C corresponds to the critical temperature T BE of Bose–Einstein condensation.
Since the interest in the quantum phenomena started, there have been two main approaches to the quantum theory, the first approach investigates the motion of a wave-particle object by assuming the wave has the characteristics of a moving particle, momentum and energy, this approach was developed by physicists Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and others. The second approach investigates the motion of a particle-wave object by assuming the particle has the characteristics of a moving wave, wavelength, wave vector, and frequency, this approach was developed by physicists De Broglie, Schrodinger and others which led to the presence of quantum mechanics. This article focuses on the second approach and merging it with classical mechanics. An early mathematical formulation for the quantum theory was proposed by De Broglie’s relations and later on, another formulation was given by Schrodinger’s equation. A successful attempt to bridge the gap between classical mechanics with quantum theory implemented via a mathematical derivation for De Broglie’s relations and Schrodinger formulation, The derivation process overcame a main obstacle was the convergence of the deterministic nature of classical mechanics with the probabilistic nature of the quantum theory by adopting an innovative method based upon replacing constant values in a deterministic relation with probabilistic variables in the same relation, and this led to switch the relation from deterministic representation to probabilistic representation. Both classical and quantum explanation are given for the deduced formulas. An energy approach is instrumented. Since classical mechanics formulas are not sufficient to explain the quantum phenomena, a new concept of complementary energy introduced in order to connect the parameters of a moving particle with the parameters of an associated wave, the value of the complementary energy for each particle adjusted the total energy equation of N moving particles without changing the magnitude of the total energy of a system of N particles. In special cases, the value of the complementary energy for some particles equals the value of the total energy for the particles. The derivation process indicates that complementary energy corresponds to the potential energy on the surface of the material which prevents the particles to escape from the boundary of the matter to the outer space and maintains its coherence, complementary energy concept also manifest the impact of the moving particles on a single particle due to the energy conveyed during direct contact in case of collision or by the remote influence through an existing field in the space, so it represents an energy of dual nature for both matter and radiation wave combined. The complementary energy is not introduced as mathematical assumption in order to manipulate the total energy equation, it’s actually exists in the total energy equation and its validity has not been applied before. A general format for any potential energy is obtained regardless the nature of field it represents (a universal format for potential energy) that is by using mathematical manipulation for the equation of total energy of N moving particles. The derivation process led to a particle-wave formula. The substitution into the particle-wave formula with the speed of light, De Broglie’s relations, revealed. Some additional applications for the particle-wave formula are suggested, also as a well known energy quantization formula obtained by applying all of De Broglie’s relation, a general energy, and speed formulas resulting during the derivation process. Matching time independent equation called Schrodinger’s amplitude equation with classical mechanics formulation demonstrated by deducing both the wave function and the magnitude of the wave vector from the classical formulation after converting it to probabilistic formulation. A dedicated section for wave function solutions for Schrodinger’s time dependent equation was given in terms of the wave functions and the magnitude of the wave vectors obtained from the matching process of Schrodinger’s amplitude equation with classical mechanics.
Analysis of the initial stages of the logical process followed by Louis de Broglie in establishing the electron phase wave equation in his 1924 thesis, which triggered the development of Wave Mechanics when Erwin Schrödinger formalized this concept with his vectorial wave equation. This development was soon followed by Quantum Mechanics, when Schrödinger proved that the Matrix Mechanics independently developed by Werner Heisenberg was equivalent to Wave Mechanics, with both theories leaving room for some degree of uncertainty as to the physical localization of the moving electron. This is what led Heisenberg to also formalize the Uncertainty Principle to take this situation into account. This principle was soon regarded as a fundamental axiomatic principle that seemed to make further exploration of the subatomic level of magnitude appear impossible to most researchers. We will analyze in this article the reason why the phase-wave velocity established by de Broglie generated this uncertainty in the localization of the moving electron in light of the current state of knowledge on the behavior of the electron in motion, in view of establishing the relevance of maintaining the Uncertainty Principle in the study of the subatomic level of magnitude.
Because time does not appear in Schr\"odinger's equation as an operator but only as a parameter, the time-energy uncertainty relation must be formulated in a special way. This problem has in fact been studied by many authors and we give a summary of their treatments. We then criticize the main conclusion of these treatments; viz., that in a measurement of energy carried out in a time interval, $\ensuremath{\Delta}t$, there must be a minimum uncertainty in the transfer of energy to the observed system, given by $\ensuremath{\Delta}({E}^{\ensuremath{'}}\ensuremath{-}E)>~\frac{h}{\ensuremath{\Delta}t}$. We show that this conclusion is erroneous in two respects. First, it is not consistent with the general principles of the quantum theory, which require that all uncertainty relations be expressible in terms of the mathematical formalism, i.e., by means of operators, wave functions, etc. Secondly, the examples of measurement processes that were used to derive the above uncertainty relation are not general enough. We then develop a systematic presentation of our own point of view, with regard to the role of time in the quantum theory, and give a concrete example of a measurement process not satisfying the above uncertainty relation.
A physically real wave associated with any moving particle and travelling in a surrounding material medium was introduced by Louis de Broglie in a series of short notes in 1923 and in a more complete form in his thesis defended in Paris on the 25th November 1924. This result, recognised by the Nobel Prize in 1929, gave rise to a major direction of "new physics" known today as "quantum mechanics". However, although such notions as "de Broglie wavelength" and "wave-particle duality" form the basis of the standard quantum theory, it actually only takes for granted (postulates) the formula for the particle wavelength and totally ignores the underlying causal, realistic and physically transparent picture of wave-particle dynamics outlined by Louis de Broglie in his thesis and further considerably developed in his later works, in the form of "double solution" and "hidden thermodynamics" theory. A price to pay for such rough deviation from the original de Broglian realism and consistency involves fundamental physics domination by purely abstract and mechanistically simplified schemes of formal symbols and rules that have led to a deep knowledge impasse justly described as "the end of science". However, a new, independent approach of "quantum field mechanics" (quant-ph/9902015, quant-ph/9902016, physics/0401164) created within the "universal science of complexity" (physics/9806002) provides many-sided confirmation and natural completion of de Broglie's "nonlinear wave mechanics", eliminating all its "difficult points" and reconstituting the causally complete, totally consistent and intrinsically unified picture of the real, complex micro-world dynamics directly extendible to all higher levels of unreduced world complexity.
The atom model of Niels Bohr is commonly considered as antiquated even if it describes the atomic spectrum of hydrogen quite accurately. The later published relation of Louis De Broglie could arithmetically be implemented into Bohr’s formulation, leading to the concept of standing waves as the existence cause of excited electron states. However, at that time it was not possible to find well defined electron trajectories being classically describable. As a consequence, the »quantum mechanics« were developed by several authors, particularly by Schrodinger and by Heisenberg, but delivering a hardly under¬standable formalism where the classical physical laws appear being abrogated while abstract terms replace concrete and imaginable ones, abandoning the particle perception of mass points. In particular, Heisenberg’s »uncertainty principle« and the assumption of state probabilities seem to be in a striking variance to the idea of standing waves. In contrast, a formulation is given here which exactly describes the electron trajectories in the exited states solely by applying classical physical laws. Firstly, the original Bohr-model - in combination with De Broglie’s relation - is rolled up. From this formula system a vibration frequency - corresponding to the De-Broglie frequency – is deduced which is n-times larger than the rotation frequency of the Bohr-model. Furthermore, a direct coherence between that vibration-frequency of the electron and the frequency of the involved light is evident being explainable as a resonance effect. Then, a three-dimensional model is proposed where the electron oscillates and pulses perpendicularly to a virtual rotation plane i.e. rotating around a vertical axis, accompanied by a perpetual energy exchange between potential and kinetic energy. This leads at the excited, metastable energy states to well-defined, three-dimensional and wavy trajectories winding up on a surface similar to the one of a hyperboloid, whereas at the ground state the trajectory is planar and stable.