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

Time and Momentum

Lut Pil

Published Jan 1, 2016• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Related papers

ENERGY AND MOMENTUM

L.D. LANDAU, E.M. LIFSHITZ

Elsevier eBooks•Jan 1, 1977•3 citations

Theoretic impetuses and lengths of Feinberg-Horodecki equation

C. A. Onate, Deborah Temitope Bankole, Akinola Samson Olayinka +1 more

The exact solution of the Feinberg-Horodecki equation for time-dependent harmonic vector potential has been investigated under a one-dimensional system. The quantized momentum and its corresponding un-normalized wave functions were explicitly obtained. The Fisher information (for time and momentum) and variance (for time and momentum) were calculated using expectation values of time and momentum via Hellman-Feynman Theory (HFT). The time and momentum Shannon entropy were obtained using an existing formula. Numerical results were for time and momentum Fisher information to confirm the Cramer-Rao inequality. Another numerical results were obtained for time and momentum Shannon entropy to confirm Bialynick-Birula, Mycielski (BBM) inequality. The effects of the potential parameters such as mass of the spring and the frequency on the theoretic quantities were fully examined. The new variance inequality was established using the inequalities of Fisher information. The established inequality was confirmed by numerical results which also satisfied the popular Cramer-Rao inequality. The theoretic impetuses for Fisher information, variance and Shannon entropy respectively, were calculated and their variation with some potentials were studied.

Sri Lankan Journal of Physics•Jul 24, 2023•0 citations

Conservation and the Distribution of a Defining Property(energy/momentum) Versus The Distribution of Probability

Francesco R. Ruggeri

In classical statistical mechanics, e.g. a Maxwell-Boltzmann (MB) gas, one tries to find the probability distribution of a particular quantity such as particle energy pp/2m. Thus there is a distribution in a quantity, making it the stochastic variable. This quantity, however, is subject to a conservation law i.e. elastic two particle scattering. In a previous note (1), we considered the case of reflection/refraction and called momentum the stochastic variable and noted that it too was linked with conservation. In fact, we argued that both the MB gas and reflection/refraction followed the same stochastic law: P(variable1) P(variable 2) = P(variable 1 + variable 2) whether variable 1 is a scalar or vector. In (2), however, we noted that exp(ipx), a free particle wavefunction, treats p as a parameter with x being the “probability” variable. This seems a little unusual because p, which is normally a variable in an MB gas and even in a quantum bound state i.e. a*(p)a(p) where W(x)=wavefunction = Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx) takes on the role of a parameter i.e. p=hbar/wavelength. Why this duality? Why is p a parameter for “x” of the probability distribution and yet at the same time a variable associated with conservation of momentum? In this note, we argue that unlike the distribution of a defining property of a particle such as momentum or energy, one may have a distribution associated with probability itself. This we argue is the case for a reflection/refraction problem which applies to both light and a particle. In the case of light, there is an interface of two media with different indices of refraction and in the case of a particle an interface with two constant potentials. In both cases, total energy of the photon/particle is constant, but there are two choices or probabilities, reflection or refraction, but they are linked with different times. A single photon or particle can only undergo one at a time. One knows exactly the two values of momentum, but the probability of each is unknown. Thus unlike an MB gas where energy/momentum is being redistributed because the two particles of the outcome exist at the same time, here a probability of 1 must somehow be distributed to the two events.. Given that the incident momentum is p, the reflected -p and the refracted p2, only considering a specific time event i.e. reflection or refraction, does not conserve momentum. In the MB case, a single time event i.e. scattering conserves both momentum and energy. Thus it seems that one does not deal with events in time. There is a distribution of probability in such a way as to ensure conservation of momentum, but does this probability already exist or get created at the interface point? We argued in (3) that if the scenario were deterministic one would have to follow it in time and treat each event separately. Rather we suggest that a distribution of probabilities allows for conservation of momentum, but this means that all three momenta exist at the interface x point as one is not considering an event at a precise point in time. This then allows for each momentum to have its own x distribution based on momentum p so that one may impose conservation of momentum and not have a deterministic time associated with the interface point.. This last idea of conservation of momentum appearing is not discussed in (3) and allows for p to behave like a parameter for x while at the same time being a variable which is conserved. In short, in an MB gas one distributes energy between two colliding particles in order to conserve total energy while for a quantum particle or photon which reflects/refracts one distributes probability to the two scenarios (reflection or refraction) such that momentum is conserved. Thus the nature of what is “distributed” is very different.

•Feb 7, 2023•0 citations

Position and Momentum

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•May 19, 2015•0 citations

Position and Momentum

Paul Busch, PEKKA J. LAHTI, Juha-Pekka Pellonpää +1 more

Theoretical and mathematical physics•Jan 1, 2016•0 citations

The generalized momentum and kinetic momentum of mesoscopic RLC circuit

Shou Zhang

In this article, we discuss the uncertainty relations in two kinds of circumstances like generalized coordinates, generalized momentum and kinetic coordinates, kinetic momentum of mesoscopic RLC by the method of unitary transformation. The results of the former are acquired of index number relation with time, where as the latter have not any relations as time goes.

Journal of Yanbian University•Jan 1, 2003•0 citations
The exact solution of the Feinberg-Horodecki equation for time-dependent harmonic vector potential has been investigated under a one-dimensional system. The quantized momentum and its corresponding un-normalized wave functions were explicitly obtained. The Fisher information (for time and momentum) and variance (for time and momentum) were calculated using expectation values of time and momentum via Hellman-Feynman Theory (HFT). The time and momentum Shannon entropy were obtained using an existing formula. Numerical results were for time and momentum Fisher information to confirm the Cramer-Rao inequality. Another numerical results were obtained for time and momentum Shannon entropy to confirm Bialynick-Birula, Mycielski (BBM) inequality. The effects of the potential parameters such as mass of the spring and the frequency on the theoretic quantities were fully examined. The new variance inequality was established using the inequalities of Fisher information. The established inequality was confirmed by numerical results which also satisfied the popular Cramer-Rao inequality. The theoretic impetuses for Fisher information, variance and Shannon entropy respectively, were calculated and their variation with some potentials were studied.
In classical statistical mechanics, e.g. a Maxwell-Boltzmann (MB) gas, one tries to find the probability distribution of a particular quantity such as particle energy pp/2m. Thus there is a distribution in a quantity, making it the stochastic variable. This quantity, however, is subject to a conservation law i.e. elastic two particle scattering. In a previous note (1), we considered the case of reflection/refraction and called momentum the stochastic variable and noted that it too was linked with conservation. In fact, we argued that both the MB gas and reflection/refraction followed the same stochastic law: P(variable1) P(variable 2) = P(variable 1 + variable 2) whether variable 1 is a scalar or vector. In (2), however, we noted that exp(ipx), a free particle wavefunction, treats p as a parameter with x being the “probability” variable. This seems a little unusual because p, which is normally a variable in an MB gas and even in a quantum bound state i.e. a*(p)a(p) where W(x)=wavefunction = Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx) takes on the role of a parameter i.e. p=hbar/wavelength. Why this duality? Why is p a parameter for “x” of the probability distribution and yet at the same time a variable associated with conservation of momentum? In this note, we argue that unlike the distribution of a defining property of a particle such as momentum or energy, one may have a distribution associated with probability itself. This we argue is the case for a reflection/refraction problem which applies to both light and a particle. In the case of light, there is an interface of two media with different indices of refraction and in the case of a particle an interface with two constant potentials. In both cases, total energy of the photon/particle is constant, but there are two choices or probabilities, reflection or refraction, but they are linked with different times. A single photon or particle can only undergo one at a time. One knows exactly the two values of momentum, but the probability of each is unknown. Thus unlike an MB gas where energy/momentum is being redistributed because the two particles of the outcome exist at the same time, here a probability of 1 must somehow be distributed to the two events.. Given that the incident momentum is p, the reflected -p and the refracted p2, only considering a specific time event i.e. reflection or refraction, does not conserve momentum. In the MB case, a single time event i.e. scattering conserves both momentum and energy. Thus it seems that one does not deal with events in time. There is a distribution of probability in such a way as to ensure conservation of momentum, but does this probability already exist or get created at the interface point? We argued in (3) that if the scenario were deterministic one would have to follow it in time and treat each event separately. Rather we suggest that a distribution of probabilities allows for conservation of momentum, but this means that all three momenta exist at the interface x point as one is not considering an event at a precise point in time. This then allows for each momentum to have its own x distribution based on momentum p so that one may impose conservation of momentum and not have a deterministic time associated with the interface point.. This last idea of conservation of momentum appearing is not discussed in (3) and allows for p to behave like a parameter for x while at the same time being a variable which is conserved. In short, in an MB gas one distributes energy between two colliding particles in order to conserve total energy while for a quantum particle or photon which reflects/refracts one distributes probability to the two scenarios (reflection or refraction) such that momentum is conserved. Thus the nature of what is “distributed” is very different.