I consider in this book a formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Usually QM is formulated based on the notion of time and space, both of which are thought a priori given quantities or notions. However, when we try to define the notion of velocity or momentum, we encounter a difficulty as we will see in chapter 1. The problem is that if the notion of time is given a priori, the velocity is definitely determined when given a position, which contradicts the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg. We then set the basis of QM on the notion of position and momentum operators as in chapter 2. Time of a local system then is defined approximately as a ratio
∣x∣/∣v∣ between the space coordinate
x and the velocity
v. In this formulation of QM, we can keep the uncertainty principle, and time is a quantity that does not have precise values unlike the usually supposed notion of time has. The feature of local time is that it is a time proper to each local system, which is defined as a finite set of quantum mechanical particles. We now have an infinite number of local times that are unique and proper to each local system. Based on the notion of local time, the motion inside a local system is described by the usual Schrödinger equation. We investigate such motion in a given local system in part II. This is a usual quantum mechanics. After some excursion of the investigation of local motion, we consider in part III the relative relation or motion between plural local systems. In the final part IV, we will prove that there is at least one Universe wave function
ϕ in which all local systems have local motions and thus local times. This concludes our formulation of Quantum Mechanics.
I consider in this book a formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Usually QM is formulated based on the notion of time and space, both of which are thought a priori given quantities or notions. However, when we try to define the notion of velocity or momentum, we encounter a difficulty as we will see in chapter 1. The problem is that if the notion of time is given a priori, the velocity is definitely determined when given a position, which contradicts the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg. We then set the basis of QM on the notion of position and momentum operators as in chapter 2. Time of a local system then is defined approximately as a ratio
∣x∣/∣v∣ between the space coordinate
x and the velocity
v. In this formulation of QM, we can keep the uncertainty principle, and time is a quantity that does not have precise values unlike the usually supposed notion of time has. The feature of local time is that it is a time proper to each local system, which is defined as a finite set of quantum mechanical particles. We now have an infinite number of local times that are unique and proper to each local system. Based on the notion of local time, the motion inside a local system is described by the usual Schrodinger equation. We investigate such motion in a given local system in part II. This is a usual quantum mechanics. After some excursion of the investigation of local motion, we consider in part III the relative relation or motion between plural local systems. In the final part IV, we will prove that there is at least one Universe wave function
ϕ in which all local systems have local motions and thus local times. This concludes our formulation of Quantum Mechanics.
Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory of the universe suggestive of a mean value theory similar to thermodynamics prior to the introduction of the atomic theory. If QM will follow a similar path to thermodynamics, then a local deterministic theory must be developed which matches QM predictions. There have been four tough barriers to a local theory of light, of which Bell’s Theorem has been considered the ultimate barrier. The other three barriers are explaining spontaneous emission, the reflection of a small fraction of light at a dielectric interface and the splitting action of a polarizer on polarized light (Malus’ Law). The challenge is that in a local theory of light, everything must have a specific cause and effect. There can be nothing spontaneous or hidden. Local solutions to all four of these barriers are presented in this paper, integrating results from two previous papers and adding the solution paths to the third and fourth barriers as well, which are nearly identical. A previous paper [1] used results from Einstein’s famous 1917 paper on stimulated emission to provide a deterministic local model for spontaneous emission. A second paper [2] showed that QM predictions in tests of Bell’s theorem could be matched with a local model by modifying the definition of entanglement in a manner invisible to quantum mechanics. This paper summarizes and extends those two results and then presents a deterministic model of reflection from a dielectric interface and transmission of polarized light through a polarizer that both match quantum mechanics. As the framework of a local theory of light emerges, it is not surprising that we find corners of physics where small disagreements with quantum mechanics are predicted. A new Bell type test is described in this paper which can distinguish the local from the nonlocal theory, giving predictions that must disagree slightly but significantly with quantum mechanics. If such experiments are proven to disagree with quantum mechanics, then the door to a local theory of light will be opened.