Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:2304.08540 · Journal of Physics Communications

Relativistic probability densities for location

J. Fenwick, Rainer Dick

Published Jun 1, 2023• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Abstract Imposing the Born rule as a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics would require the existence of normalizable wave functions ψ( x , t) also for relativistic particles. Indeed, the Fourier transforms of normalized k -space amplitudes <?CDATA $\psi ({\boldsymbol{k}},t)=\psi ({\boldsymbol{k}})\exp (-{\rm{i}}{\omega }_{{\boldsymbol{k}}}t)$?> ψ ( k , t ) = ψ ( k ) exp ( − i ω k t ) yield normalized functions ψ( x , t) which reproduce the standard k -space expectation values for energy and momentum from local momentum (pseudo-)densities ℘ μ ( x , t) = (ℏ/2i)[ψ +( x , t)∂ μ ψ( x , t) − ∂ μ ψ +( x , t) · ψ( x , t)]. However, in the case of bosonic fields, the wave packets ψ( x , t) are nonlocally related to the corresponding relativistic quantum fields ϕ( x , t), and therefore the canonical local energy-momentum densities <?CDATA ${ \mathcal H }({\boldsymbol{x}},t)=c{{ \mathcal P }}^{0}({\boldsymbol{x}},t)$?>  ( x , t ) = c  0 ( x , t ) and <?CDATA ${ \mathcal P }({\boldsymbol{x}},t)$?>  ( x , t ) differ from ℘ μ ( x , t) and appear nonlocal in terms of the wave packets ψ( x , t). We examine the relation between the canonical energy density <?CDATA ${ \mathcal H }({\boldsymbol{x}},t)$?>  ( x , t ) , the canonical charge density ϱ( x , t), the energy pseudo-density <?CDATA $\tilde{{ \mathcal H }}({\boldsymbol{x}},t)=c{\wp }^{0}({\boldsymbol{x}},t)$?>  ˜ ( x , t ) = c ℘ 0 ( x , t ) , and the Born density ∣ψ(

DOI
10.1088/2399-6528/acddcc

Related papers

Deriving Born's Rule from Wave-Amplitude Superposition and Energy Quanta: An Open Research Challenge on the Dynamical Origin of Probability

Kaisheng Li, Longji Li

One of the most successful, yet most puzzling, structures of quantum mechanics is Born's rule:P(\mathbf{x},t)=|\Psi(\mathbf{x},t)|^2.It establishes, with extraordinarily high experimental accuracy, the connection between the quantum wave function and the statistical distribution of actual measurement outcomes. Yet a more fundamental question remains worth asking: Why is probability given precisely by the modulus squared of the complex wave amplitude? Standard quantum mechanics uses Born's rule as a fundamental rule. This paper instead poses an open research question: Could Born's rule be not an irreducible probabilistic axiom, but a statistical emergence resulting from the combined action of continuous wave-amplitude superposition, quantized energy exchange, and local interaction dynamics? We propose a candidate physical picture:wave-amplitude superposition->spatial interference structure->local interaction->quantized energy exchange->discrete events}->probability distribution The central mathematical question is \Gamma(\mathbf{x})\stackrel{?}{\propto}|\Psi(\mathbf{x})|^2 where $\Gamma(\mathbf{x})$ denotes the occurrence rate of localized discrete detection events. This paper does not claim to have completed such a derivation. Instead, it explicitly formulates the problem as an \textbf{open, computable, testable, and falsifiable research challenge}. We particularly invite young physicists, mathematicians, and researchers skilled in AI and modern computational tools to explore this problem.

•Sep 16, 2026•0 citations

The wave function and the distribution of the observables in relativistic quantum theory

V. F. Krotov

Here the probability density of relativistic particles coordinates, satisfying the formal conditions of the quantum mechanics and the special relativity, is determined (under textbooks view, such density does not exist). It is specified for the boson, neutral and charged, scalar and vector, including the photon, the electron. Uniqueness of this design has been proved. This is a relativistic invariant, describing the probability of the particle observation in points of space-time. The time is deprived of his role of a dynamic parameter of distribution and formally equalized with other coordinates. Also the meaning of the energy-momentum distribution is clarified. Conditions of such distributions observation are described. As applied to the quantum field these structures are transformed into new characteristics of particles distribution in space-time in addition to those for momentum states. Their operators for free fields are obtained. Under such model the Heisenberg's uncertainty relations are grounded for the relativistic particle; both particles and antiparticles turn out to be different states of a single particle; vacuum state of boson quantum field has zero energy.

arXiv:0903.2725•Mar 16, 2009•0 citations

From Born Back to Schrödinger: Reconstructing the Physical Meaning of the Wave Function

Kaisheng Li, Longji Li

The Schrödinger equation and the Born rule constitute two of the most successful structures in quantum mechanics. The former governs the continuous evolution of the wave function, while the latter connects its squared amplitude to the statistical distribution of experimental outcomes. Yet these two structures operate at different descriptive levels: the Schrödinger state is continuous, spatially extended, and phase-sensitive, whereas individual experiments terminate in localized physical events. This paper develops a theoretical framework for reconstructing the physical relation between these two levels. Rather than proceeding only in the conventional direction from Schrödinger dynamics to Born probabilities, we introduce an inverse explanatory strategy: from Born back to Schrödinger. Born statistics are treated as an empirical constraint from which the physical role of the wave function is reconsidered. We propose that, for the single-particle regime examined here, the wave function may be interpreted functionally as a dynamical propagation structure rather than as the localized particle itself. Its amplitude, phase, conserved current, gauge-covariant propagation momentum, and associated velocity field jointly define a structured family of possible motions. This interpretation leads to three separations: propagation from localization, propagation from physical population, and arrival from detector registration. A physical preparation generates a source measure (\mu_0^{\rm phys}); Schrödinger dynamics generates a propagation map (\Phi_\Psi); and microscopic detector dynamics is represented by a response map (\mathcal R_D). The Born problem can then be formulated as the closure condition \[ \boxed{\mathcal R_D\!\left[(\Phi_\Psi)_*\mu_0^{\rm phys}\right] \overset{?}{=} \mu_{\rm Born,D}.} \] This relation is not claimed here as a derived law, but as the central dynamical problem that a physical reconstruction of quantum probability must solve without inserting the Born measure at either boundary. The paper synthesizes six preceding studies on wave-packet localization, Born's scattering interpretation, the emergence of probability, the physical meaning of the wave function, source-to-detector transport, and unified propagation dynamics. It places the resulting framework in dialogue with Madelung and Hamilton–Jacobi formulations, Bohmian mechanics, decoherence, Quantum Darwinism, structural and symmetry-based derivations of the Born rule, Everettian approaches, objective-collapse theories, and detector models. The resulting proposal is best understood as a propagation-first theoretical reconstruction program: Schrödinger dynamics organizes possible propagation, while Born statistics constrain how that propagation becomes physically realized. Keywords: Schrödinger equation; Born rule; wave function; quantum foundations; propagation structure; quantum probability; quantum trajectories; source-to-detector transport; detector response; wave–particle duality; Bohmian mechanics; quantum measurement

•Oct 4, 2026•0 citations

Localization of relativistic particles and uncertainty relations

Daniel R. Terno

Localization of relativistic particles and their position-momentum uncertainty relations are not yet fully understood. We discuss two schemes of photon localization that are based on the energy density. One scheme produces a positive operator-valued measure for localization. It coincides with the number density operator and reproduces an effective $3\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}3$ polarization density matrix. Another scheme results in a probability distribution that is conditioned on the detection. In both schemes the uncertainty relations for transversal position and momentum approach the Heisenberg bound $\ensuremath{\Delta}p\ensuremath{\Delta}z=\frac{1}{2}\ensuremath{\hbar}$.

arXiv:1308.0479•Physical Review A•Apr 21, 2014•24 citations

Quantum interference and particle trajectories

James H. Luscombe

The existence of precise particle trajectories in any quantum state is accounted for in a consistent way by allowing delocalization of the particle charge. The relativistic mass of the particle remains within a small volume surrounding a singularity moving along the particle trajectory. The singularity is the source of an electric displacement field. The field induces a polarization charge in the vacuum and this charge is equated with the charge of the particle. Under dynamic conditions a distributed charge density rho(x,t) is induced in the vacuum. The volume integral of the charge density is equal to the charge of the particle and is rigorously conserved. The charge density is derived from a complex-valued physical field psi(x,t) such that rho(x,t) = |psi(x,t)|^2. The position probability density is equated with the mean charge density. The mean field psi(x,t) for many sample realizations with a given energy E and potential V(x) is the sum of the individual fields. In order for the sum to be non-zero, the components in the spectral decompositions of the individual fields must be spatially coherent. The particle has a spin frequency given by Planck's relation hv = T - V + mc^2, where T is the kinetic energy, determined from the momentum p and V is a quantum potential such that E = T + V is conserved. The instantaneous phase of the spin is given by the phase of exp(ikx) in the spectral decomposition a(k) of psi(x,t). It is spatially coherent, due to the dependence on x. The momentum probability distribution is given by the squared magnitude of the coefficients a(k). The Schrodinger equation is derived by requiring local conservation of mean energy.

arXiv:physics/9706011•Jun 6, 1997•0 citations

Revisiting Schrödinger's Dream of the Wave Packet: From Wave-Amplitude Propagation to Localized Detection Events

Kaisheng Li, Longji Li

The wave-particle duality introduced by de Broglie and developed mathematically by Schrödinger remains one of the deepest conceptual achievements of modern physics. Yet Schrödinger's original physical intuition contained a problem that has never entirely disappeared: if a particle is represented by a wave, how can an extended and generally dispersive wave structure correspond to the localized events observed in experiments? Schrödinger initially hoped that a particle could be understood as a localized wave packet formed by the coherent superposition of many elementary waves. The program was attractive because localization could then arise from interference rather than being imposed as an independent particle property. However, generic wave packets disperse under free evolution, while stable bound states of quantum systems are not generally localized packets moving along classical trajectories. The subsequent Born interpretation provided an extraordinarily successful connection between the wave function and experimental statistics, identifying ∣Ψ∣2|\Psi|^2 with a probability density. Nevertheless, this interpretation leaves open a distinct physical question: how does a spatially extended complex amplitude structure give rise to localized, discrete detection events? This paper revisits that question from the historical development of wave mechanics to the operational structure of early scattering experiments. Particular attention is given to the experiments of Davisson and Kunsman, Ramsauer's measurements of slow-electron scattering, and Dymond's measurements of the velocity and angular distribution of electrons scattered in helium. Although these experiments differ in physical arrangement and measured quantities, they share a common operational structure: an extended incident quantum state undergoes propagation and interaction, after which the experiment registers discrete events within a finite spatial, angular, or energy acceptance region. The central proposal of this paper is therefore not a new derivation of Born's rule, but a reformulation of the problem that precedes such a derivation. Instead of asking only why a quantum state has a probability distribution, one may ask how a propagating wave-amplitude structure is dynamically converted into a localized event rate. In symbolic form, Ψ⟶D⟶Γ,\Psi \quad \longrightarrow \quad \mathcal{D} \quad \longrightarrow \quad \Gamma, where Ψ\Psi denotes the propagating amplitude structure, D\mathcal{D} represents the interaction and detection dynamics, and Γ\Gamma denotes the resulting localized event rate. Born's rule then appears as the empirical relation Γ(r)∝∣Ψ(r)∣2,\Gamma(\mathbf r)\propto |\Psi(\mathbf r)|^2, whose dynamical origin remains to be established. The paper concludes by reconsidering Schrödinger's original wave intuition rather than simply declaring it defeated. The failure of the persistent localized wave packet may indicate not that wave ontology was fundamentally misguided, but that propagation and localization are physically distinct stages of quantum dynamics. This distinction provides a conceptual starting point for a subsequent series of investigations into the dynamical origin of quantum probability.

•Sep 18, 2026•0 citations
Abstract Imposing the Born rule as a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics would require the existence of normalizable wave functions ψ( x , t) also for relativistic particles. Indeed, the Fourier transforms of normalized k -space amplitudes <?CDATA $\psi ({\boldsymbol{k}},t)=\psi ({\boldsymbol{k}})\exp (-{\rm{i}}{\omega }_{{\boldsymbol{k}}}t)$?> ψ ( k , t ) = ψ ( k ) exp ( − i ω k t ) yield normalized functions ψ( x , t) which reproduce the standard k -space expectation values for energy and momentum from local momentum (pseudo-)densities ℘ μ ( x , t) = (ℏ/2i)[ψ +( x , t)∂ μ ψ( x , t) − ∂ μ ψ +( x , t) · ψ( x , t)]. However, in the case of bosonic fields, the wave packets ψ( x , t) are nonlocally related to the corresponding relativistic quantum fields ϕ( x , t), and therefore the canonical local energy-momentum densities <?CDATA ${ \mathcal H }({\boldsymbol{x}},t)=c{{ \mathcal P }}^{0}({\boldsymbol{x}},t)$?>  ( x , t ) = c  0 ( x , t ) and <?CDATA ${ \mathcal P }({\boldsymbol{x}},t)$?>  ( x , t ) differ from ℘ μ ( x , t) and appear nonlocal in terms of the wave packets ψ( x , t). We examine the relation between the canonical energy density <?CDATA ${ \mathcal H }({\boldsymbol{x}},t)$?>  ( x , t ) , the canonical charge density ϱ( x , t), the energy pseudo-density <?CDATA $\tilde{{ \mathcal H }}({\boldsymbol{x}},t)=c{\wp }^{0}({\boldsymbol{x}},t)$?>  ˜ ( x , t ) = c ℘ 0 ( x , t ) , and the Born density ∣ψ(
One of the most successful, yet most puzzling, structures of quantum mechanics is Born's rule:P(\mathbf{x},t)=|\Psi(\mathbf{x},t)|^2.It establishes, with extraordinarily high experimental accuracy, the connection between the quantum wave function and the statistical distribution of actual measurement outcomes. Yet a more fundamental question remains worth asking: Why is probability given precisely by the modulus squared of the complex wave amplitude? Standard quantum mechanics uses Born's rule as a fundamental rule. This paper instead poses an open research question: Could Born's rule be not an irreducible probabilistic axiom, but a statistical emergence resulting from the combined action of continuous wave-amplitude superposition, quantized energy exchange, and local interaction dynamics? We propose a candidate physical picture:wave-amplitude superposition->spatial interference structure->local interaction->quantized energy exchange->discrete events}->probability distribution The central mathematical question is \Gamma(\mathbf{x})\stackrel{?}{\propto}|\Psi(\mathbf{x})|^2 where Γ(x)\Gamma(\mathbf{x})Γ(x) denotes the occurrence rate of localized discrete detection events. This paper does not claim to have completed such a derivation. Instead, it explicitly formulates the problem as an \textbf{open, computable, testable, and falsifiable research challenge}. We particularly invite young physicists, mathematicians, and researchers skilled in AI and modern computational tools to explore this problem.
Here the probability density of relativistic particles coordinates, satisfying the formal conditions of the quantum mechanics and the special relativity, is determined (under textbooks view, such density does not exist). It is specified for the boson, neutral and charged, scalar and vector, including the photon, the electron. Uniqueness of this design has been proved. This is a relativistic invariant, describing the probability of the particle observation in points of space-time. The time is deprived of his role of a dynamic parameter of distribution and formally equalized with other coordinates. Also the meaning of the energy-momentum distribution is clarified. Conditions of such distributions observation are described. As applied to the quantum field these structures are transformed into new characteristics of particles distribution in space-time in addition to those for momentum states. Their operators for free fields are obtained. Under such model the Heisenberg's uncertainty relations are grounded for the relativistic particle; both particles and antiparticles turn out to be different states of a single particle; vacuum state of boson quantum field has zero energy.
The Schrödinger equation and the Born rule constitute two of the most successful structures in quantum mechanics. The former governs the continuous evolution of the wave function, while the latter connects its squared amplitude to the statistical distribution of experimental outcomes. Yet these two structures operate at different descriptive levels: the Schrödinger state is continuous, spatially extended, and phase-sensitive, whereas individual experiments terminate in localized physical events. This paper develops a theoretical framework for reconstructing the physical relation between these two levels. Rather than proceeding only in the conventional direction from Schrödinger dynamics to Born probabilities, we introduce an inverse explanatory strategy: from Born back to Schrödinger. Born statistics are treated as an empirical constraint from which the physical role of the wave function is reconsidered. We propose that, for the single-particle regime examined here, the wave function may be interpreted functionally as a dynamical propagation structure rather than as the localized particle itself. Its amplitude, phase, conserved current, gauge-covariant propagation momentum, and associated velocity field jointly define a structured family of possible motions. This interpretation leads to three separations: propagation from localization, propagation from physical population, and arrival from detector registration. A physical preparation generates a source measure (\mu_0^{\rm phys}); Schrödinger dynamics generates a propagation map (\Phi_\Psi); and microscopic detector dynamics is represented by a response map (\mathcal R_D). The Born problem can then be formulated as the closure condition RD ⁣[(ΦΨ)∗μ0phys]=?μBorn,D. \boxed{\mathcal R_D\!\left[(\Phi_\Psi)_*\mu_0^{\rm phys}\right] \overset{?}{=} \mu_{\rm Born,D}.} RD​[(ΦΨ​)∗​μ0phys​]=?μBorn,D​.​ This relation is not claimed here as a derived law, but as the central dynamical problem that a physical reconstruction of quantum probability must solve without inserting the Born measure at either boundary. The paper synthesizes six preceding studies on wave-packet localization, Born's scattering interpretation, the emergence of probability, the physical meaning of the wave function, source-to-detector transport, and unified propagation dynamics. It places the resulting framework in dialogue with Madelung and Hamilton–Jacobi formulations, Bohmian mechanics, decoherence, Quantum Darwinism, structural and symmetry-based derivations of the Born rule, Everettian approaches, objective-collapse theories, and detector models. The resulting proposal is best understood as a propagation-first theoretical reconstruction program: Schrödinger dynamics organizes possible propagation, while Born statistics constrain how that propagation becomes physically realized. Keywords: Schrödinger equation; Born rule; wave function; quantum foundations; propagation structure; quantum probability; quantum trajectories; source-to-detector transport; detector response; wave–particle duality; Bohmian mechanics; quantum measurement
Localization of relativistic particles and their position-momentum uncertainty relations are not yet fully understood. We discuss two schemes of photon localization that are based on the energy density. One scheme produces a positive operator-valued measure for localization. It coincides with the number density operator and reproduces an effective $3\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}3$ polarization density matrix. Another scheme results in a probability distribution that is conditioned on the detection. In both schemes the uncertainty relations for transversal position and momentum approach the Heisenberg bound $\ensuremath{\Delta}p\ensuremath{\Delta}z=\frac{1}{2}\ensuremath{\hbar}$.
The existence of precise particle trajectories in any quantum state is accounted for in a consistent way by allowing delocalization of the particle charge. The relativistic mass of the particle remains within a small volume surrounding a singularity moving along the particle trajectory. The singularity is the source of an electric displacement field. The field induces a polarization charge in the vacuum and this charge is equated with the charge of the particle. Under dynamic conditions a distributed charge density rho(x,t) is induced in the vacuum. The volume integral of the charge density is equal to the charge of the particle and is rigorously conserved. The charge density is derived from a complex-valued physical field psi(x,t) such that rho(x,t) = |psi(x,t)|^2. The position probability density is equated with the mean charge density. The mean field psi(x,t) for many sample realizations with a given energy E and potential V(x) is the sum of the individual fields. In order for the sum to be non-zero, the components in the spectral decompositions of the individual fields must be spatially coherent. The particle has a spin frequency given by Planck's relation hv = T - V + mc^2, where T is the kinetic energy, determined from the momentum p and V is a quantum potential such that E = T + V is conserved. The instantaneous phase of the spin is given by the phase of exp(ikx) in the spectral decomposition a(k) of psi(x,t). It is spatially coherent, due to the dependence on x. The momentum probability distribution is given by the squared magnitude of the coefficients a(k). The Schrodinger equation is derived by requiring local conservation of mean energy.
The wave-particle duality introduced by de Broglie and developed mathematically by Schrödinger remains one of the deepest conceptual achievements of modern physics. Yet Schrödinger's original physical intuition contained a problem that has never entirely disappeared: if a particle is represented by a wave, how can an extended and generally dispersive wave structure correspond to the localized events observed in experiments? Schrödinger initially hoped that a particle could be understood as a localized wave packet formed by the coherent superposition of many elementary waves. The program was attractive because localization could then arise from interference rather than being imposed as an independent particle property. However, generic wave packets disperse under free evolution, while stable bound states of quantum systems are not generally localized packets moving along classical trajectories. The subsequent Born interpretation provided an extraordinarily successful connection between the wave function and experimental statistics, identifying ∣Ψ∣2|\Psi|^2 with a probability density. Nevertheless, this interpretation leaves open a distinct physical question: how does a spatially extended complex amplitude structure give rise to localized, discrete detection events? This paper revisits that question from the historical development of wave mechanics to the operational structure of early scattering experiments. Particular attention is given to the experiments of Davisson and Kunsman, Ramsauer's measurements of slow-electron scattering, and Dymond's measurements of the velocity and angular distribution of electrons scattered in helium. Although these experiments differ in physical arrangement and measured quantities, they share a common operational structure: an extended incident quantum state undergoes propagation and interaction, after which the experiment registers discrete events within a finite spatial, angular, or energy acceptance region. The central proposal of this paper is therefore not a new derivation of Born's rule, but a reformulation of the problem that precedes such a derivation. Instead of asking only why a quantum state has a probability distribution, one may ask how a propagating wave-amplitude structure is dynamically converted into a localized event rate. In symbolic form, Ψ⟶D⟶Γ,\Psi \quad \longrightarrow \quad \mathcal{D} \quad \longrightarrow \quad \Gamma, where Ψ\Psi denotes the propagating amplitude structure, D\mathcal{D} represents the interaction and detection dynamics, and Γ\Gamma denotes the resulting localized event rate. Born's rule then appears as the empirical relation Γ(r)∝∣Ψ(r)∣2,\Gamma(\mathbf r)\propto |\Psi(\mathbf r)|^2, whose dynamical origin remains to be established. The paper concludes by reconsidering Schrödinger's original wave intuition rather than simply declaring it defeated. The failure of the persistent localized wave packet may indicate not that wave ontology was fundamentally misguided, but that propagation and localization are physically distinct stages of quantum dynamics. This distinction provides a conceptual starting point for a subsequent series of investigations into the dynamical origin of quantum probability.