The Lagrangians of physics arise out of a mathematical game between a ``smart'' measurer and nature (personified by a demon). Each contestant wants to maximize his level of Fisher information I. The game is zero sum, by conservation of information in the closed system. The payoff of the game introduces a variational principle---extreme physical information (EPI)---which fixes both the Lagrangian and the physical constant of each scenario. The EPI approach provides an understanding of the relationship between measurement and physical law. EPI also defines a prescription for constructing Lagrangians. The prior knowledge required for this purpose is a rule of symmetry or conservation that implies a unitary transformation for which I remains invariant. As an example, when applied to the smart measurement of the space-time coordinate of a particle, the symmetry used is that between position-time space and momentum-energy space. Then the unitary transformation is the Fourier one, and EPI derives the following: the equivalence of energy, momentum, and mass; the constancy of Planck's parameter h; and the Lagrangian that implies both the Klein-Gordon equation and the Dirac equation of quantum mechanics.
The Lagrangians of physics arise out of a mathematical game between a ``smart'' measurer and nature (personified by a demon). Each contestant wants to maximize his level of Fisher information I. The game is zero sum, by conservation of information in the closed system. The payoff of the game introduces a variational principle---extreme physical information (EPI)---which fixes both the Lagrangian and the physical constant of each scenario. The EPI approach provides an understanding of the relationship between measurement and physical law. EPI also defines a prescription for constructing Lagrangians. The prior knowledge required for this purpose is a rule of symmetry or conservation that implies a unitary transformation for which I remains invariant. As an example, when applied to the smart measurement of the space-time coordinate of a particle, the symmetry used is that between position-time space and momentum-energy space. Then the unitary transformation is the Fourier one, and EPI derives the following: the equivalence of energy, momentum, and mass; the constancy of Planck's parameter h; and the Lagrangian that implies both the Klein-Gordon equation and the Dirac equation of quantum mechanics.
The principle of extreme physical information (EPI) places physics on an information-theoretic footing. It yields many of the fundamental wave equations of physics (of Klein-Gordon, Dirac, etc.). EPI is based upon the measurement of particle four-vectors ${\mathbf{\ensuremath{\theta}}}_{\mathit{n}}$ with random errors xn, n=1,...,N. This leads to an additive Fisher information form whose extremization provides the derivations. However, the model measurement procedure was, in the past, overly restrictive: the real and imaginary parts qn(x), n=1,...,N of the probability amplitude functions for the fluctuations were required to have nonoverlapping support regions. Here we rederive the requisite information form without this restriction. Our model measurement procedure is simply the efficient collection of four-data, that is, N independent measurements of four-coordinates of particles of the field. In effect, each measurement defines a different degree of freedom qn(x) of the scenario. \textcopyright{} 1996 The American Physical Society.
It is well known that a Lagrangian (usually kinetic energy - potential) may be varied to produce Newton’s second law of motion. In (1) it is noted that kinetic energy is proportional to a Fisher’s information of the form b Integral dt dx/dt dx/dt (b=constant) and so in a sense Fisher’s information may be varied together with another piece i.e. -V(x). In (2), it is noted that Fisher’s information, this time with a probability P(x), i.e. b Integral dx P(x) {d/dx ln(P) } {d/dx lnP) } may be varied (with constraints) to yield the Schrodinger equation. (One may note that the two definitions of Fisher’s information are the same if P(x)=x(t)x(t) in the first case.) Here we consider the notion of impulse and pressure which depends on p. We argue that a free quantum particle with constant p undergoes x=p/m t on average, but is associated with a probability distribution exp(ipx) which contains uncertainty in x (within a wavelength) and no time. P, however, represents an impulse which the particle may impart. In the case of potential V(x) one may consider a linear (interfering) sum of exp(ipx)’s i.e. W(x)= wavefunction = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). This leads to an average impulse of -idW/dx / W. Classically pressure is created by multiplying impulse by velocity (flux). If time does not exist within a wavelength then there is no time within it. There is, however, still an external clock and p ave in a sense should correspond to an m v(ave) nonrelativistically. Thus WW (bound system) is in a sense like a pressure. One may then suggest that for an equilibrium scenario one extremizes this pressure with respect to constraints (EWW and V(x)W). The variation is with respect to W(x), the wavefunction. Given that a bound particle maps to an rms momentum such that KE(x) = prms(x)prms(x)/2m where prms(x) is the classical value, then at the classical level prms(x) vrms(x) should be pressure and should also satisfy an extremization equation. In fact, the extremization equation using WW should be very closely related to it. One is in fact the d/dx of the other. The classical notion of pressure, proportional to vv, may be extremized subject to constraints. This leads to Newton’s second law which contains d/dt explicitly. Changing to “x” concepts yields v(x)d/dx which may be integrated to yield an energy conservation equation matching the quantum one. Thus we try to think of extremization of Fisher’s information i.e. EPI (extreme physical information) in terms of pressure, in both the classical and quantum cases.
In (1) the Schrodinger equation is derived using the extremization of Fisher information in a certain way formulated in (2) i.e. Extreme Physical Information. Fisher information, however, is defined in terms of P(x) which in quantum mechanics is W*(x)W(x) where W(x) is the wavefunction. As a result, the Schrodinger equation is derived in terms of P(x) and then the mathematical substitution P(x)=W(x)W(x) for a bound state “simplifies” the form of the equation. Otherwise there would be no need to introduce the wavefunction. Furthermore P(x) = constant for a quantum free particle which is also a solution of the Schrodinger equation. For P(x)=constant, however, one would normally not consider using the Fisher information. We further note that in a physical example, namely that of the reflection/refraction of light from an interface of media one is forced to introduce the concept of a wavefunction i.e. the square root of flux, otherwise the problem cannot be solved. Thus in this situation one does not solve the problem in terms of P(x) and then introduce W(x) to simplify the form. In particular, if one considers a single photon moving to the right, it either reflects or refracts (with probability), but the ensuing equations involve the weight of the square root fluxes (wavefunctions) of all three. How can this be unless there is uncertainty in time and space which allows one to have all three together? Thus the reflection/refraction problem depends on square root probability or flux and introduces the idea of uncertainty in x, t. Given the translational invariance in the problem, it is natural to introduce the translation operator d/dx. In fact, one may define the uncertainty in x such that one has an eigenfunction of -id/dx i.e. exp(ipx). This is complex and so its modulus respects P(x)=constant which would yield a Fisher’s information of 0, meaning that there is no probability and hence no need for Fisher’s information. There is, however, probability in x, but a different level than the deterministic x=vt where v=constant. Thus we argue that one may obtain exp(ipx) strictly from the notion of translational invariance. In other words, Fisher information is not required to find this form and the quantum physics associated with it. Nevertheless Fisher information and EPI (Extreme physical Information) may be used to derive the Schrodinger equation (applied to a bound state) and one may deduce exp(ipx) from this. We note, however, that Fisher information makes use of d/dx which is the translational generator and so the idea of translational invariance and Fisher’s information/EPI may be linked.
For the case of a free particle, it is known that one may extremize a Lagrangian L=.5mvv, where v=dx/dt, to obtain: d/dt dx/dt = 0. In this classical case, one is interested in x and t or x(t). One may think of moments i.e. powers of derivatives of x(t). Given the first moment is equal to a constant, all higher moments are 0. Each moment yields a piece of information. Thus there is one piece of information, namely the constant velocity v=dx/dt. A second derivative d/dt dx/dt =0 demonstrates there is no further information. The form d/dt dx/dt, however, is associated with an extremization of a function, namely L=.5mvv or Integral .5mvv dt. Thus we argue that extremization is really linked to information found in the problem for the free particle case. Next, we consider .5 Integral dt vv = .5 Integral v dx. This is proportional to Integral p dx where p represents a physical impulse. The equation d/dt dx/dt =0 shows there exists only one piece of information, regardless of the value of v. In other words, all v values satisfy this equation (where v=constant). In analogy, if one wishes all p values to satisfy Integral p dx, p = constant, without distinguishing p, then x= constant/p. This, however, is the quantum wavelength. If it is repeated, in space, one desires a periodic function in px which has a modulus of 1, i.e. an eigenfunction of -id/dx namely exp(ipx). This does not follow from a Fisher’s information type variation, but rather from the idea of information and two quantities of interest, namely a kind of probability exp(ipx) and x. The modulus of 1 is equivalent to the single piece of information present i.e. v=constant. To see Fisher’s information enter the quantum picture, one may consider a particle in a box with infinite walls. In such a case, exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx) are present or cos(px) if a(p)=a(-p). There is one piece of information, so d/dx cos(px) = function(px). function(px) is the one piece of extra information like v. Finding a second moment cannot yield any further information i.e. d/dx d/dx cos(px) = constant cos(px). If it did not, there would be extra information in the system, but v=constant is the only information. d/dx d/dx cos(px), however, follows from the extremization of Fisher’ s information subject to the constraint Integral cos(px)cos(xp) CC = 1. Thus we argue that in the free particle case, extremization really represents moments (shown by derivatives) and information. We also consider the case of a potential V(x) present.
Seeking the unknown dynamics obeyed by a particle gives rise to the de Broglie wave representation, without the need for physical assumptions specific to quantum mechanics. The only required physical assumption is conservation of momentum μ. The particle, of mass m, moves through free space from an unknown source-plane position a to an unknown coordinate x in an aperture plane of unknown probability density pX(x), and then to an output plane of observed position y=a+z. There is no prior knowledge of the probability laws p(a,M),p(a) or p(M), with M the particle momentum at the source. It is desired to (i)optimally estimate a, in the sense of a maximum likelihood (ML) estimate. The estimate is further optimized, by minimizing its error through (ii) maximizing the Fisher information about a that is received at y. Forming the ML estimate requires (iii) estimation of the likelihood law pZ(z), which (iv) must obey positivity. The relation pZ(z)=|u(z)|*2≥0 satisfies this. The same u(z) conveniently defines the Fisher channel capacity, a concept central to the principle of Extreme physical information (EPI). Its output u(z) achieves aims (i)–(iv). The output is parametrized by a free parameter K. For a choice K=0, the result is u(z)=δ(z), indicating classical motion. Or, for a finite, empirical choice K=h¯(Planck’s constant), u(z) obeys the familiar de Broglie representation as the Fourier transform of the particle’s probability amplitude function P(μ) on momentum μ. For a definite momentum μ, u(z) becomes a sinusoid of wavelength λ= h¯/μ, the de Broglie result.
Consider a finite-sized, multidimensional system in parameter state a. The system is either at statistical equilibrium or general nonequilibrium, and may obey either classical or quantum physics. L. Hardy's mathematical axioms provide a basis for the physics obeyed by any such system. One axiom is that the number N of distinguishable states a in the system obeys N=max. This assumes that N is known as deterministic prior knowledge. However, most observed systems suffer statistical fluctuations, for which N is therefore only known approximately. Then what happens if the scope of the axiom N=max is extended to include such observed systems? It is found that the state a of the system must obey a principle of maximum Fisher information, I=I(max). This is important because many physical laws have been derived, assuming as a working hypothesis that I=I(max). These derivations include uses of the principle of extreme physical information (EPI). Examples of such derivations were of the De Broglie wave hypothesis, quantum wave equations, Maxwell's equations, new laws of biology (e.g., of Coulomb force-directed cell development and of in situ cancer growth), and new laws of economic fluctuation and investment. That the principle I=I(max) itself derives from suitably extended Hardy axioms thereby eliminates its need to be assumed in these derivations. Thus, uses of I=I(max) and EPI express physics at its most fundamental level, its axiomatic basis in math.