Using Special Relativity (SR) as a starting point, then noting a few empirical 4-Vector facts, one can derive the Principles that are normally considered to be Axioms of Quantum Mechanics (QM). Since many of the QM Axioms are rather obscure, this seems a more logical and understandable paradigm than QM as a separate theory from SR, and sheds light on the origin and meaning of the QM Principles. For instance, the properties of SR can be “quantized by the Metric”, while SpaceTime & the Metric are not themselves “quantized”, in agreement with all known experiments and observations to-date. The SRQM or [SR→QM] Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: A Tensor Study of Physical 4-Vectors. I also introduce the SRQM Diagramming Method: an instructive, graphical charting-method, which visually shows how the SRQM 4-Vectors, Lorentz 4-Scalars, and 4-Tensors are all related to each other. This symbolic representation clarifies a lot of physics and is a great tool for teaching and understanding. The use of 4-Vectors allows many deep results simply by noticing symmetries in the equations. 4-Vectors = 4D (1,0)-Tensors are a fantastic language/tool for describing the physics of both relativistic and quantum phenomena. They easily show many interesting properties and relations of our Universe, and do so in a simple and concise mathematical way. Due to their tensorial nature, these SR 4-Vectors are automatically coordinate-frame invariant, and can be used to generate *ALL* of the physical SR Lorentz Scalar (0,0)-Tensors and higher-rank SR Tensors. Let me repeat: You can mathematically build *ALL* the Lorentz Scalars and larger SR Tensors from SR 4-Vectors. 4-Vectors are likewise easily shown to be related to the standard 3-vectors that are used in Newtonian classical mechanics, Maxwellian classical electromagnetism, and standard quantum theory. Each 4-Vector also connects a special relativistically-related scalar to a 3-vector: ex. Temporal energy (E) & Spatial 3-momentum (p) as 4-Momentum P = (E/c,p). Why 4-Vectors as opposed to some of the more abstract mathematical approaches to Quantum Mechanics (QM)? Because the components of 4-Vectors are physical properties that can actually be empirically measured. Experiment is the ultimate arbiter of which theories actually correspond to reality. If your quantum logics and string theories give no testable/measurable predictions, then they are basically useless for real, actual, empirical physics. In this treatise, I will first extensively demonstrate how 4-Vectors are used in the context of Special Relativity (SR),and then show that their use in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (RQM) is really not fundamentally different. Quantum Principles, without need of QM Axioms, then emerge in a natural and elegant way.
Using Special Relativity (SR) as a starting point, then noting a few empirical 4-Vector facts, one can derive the Principles that are normally considered to be Axioms of Quantum Mechanics (QM). Since many of the QM Axioms are rather obscure, this seems a more logical and understandable paradigm than QM as a separate theory from SR, and sheds light on the origin and meaning of the QM Principles. For instance, the properties of SR can be “quantized by the Metric”, while SpaceTime & the Metric are not themselves “quantized”, in agreement with all known experiments and observations to-date. The SRQM or [SR→QM] Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: A Tensor Study of Physical 4-Vectors. I also introduce the SRQM Diagramming Method: an instructive, graphical charting-method, which visually shows how the SRQM 4-Vectors, Lorentz 4-Scalars, and 4-Tensors are all related to each other. This symbolic representation clarifies a lot of physics and is a great tool for teaching and understanding. The use of 4-Vectors allows many deep results simply by noticing symmetries in the equations. 4-Vectors = 4D (1,0)-Tensors are a fantastic language/tool for describing the physics of both relativistic and quantum phenomena. They easily show many interesting properties and relations of our Universe, and do so in a simple and concise mathematical way. Due to their tensorial nature, these SR 4-Vectors are automatically coordinate-frame invariant, and can be used to generate ALL of the physical SR Lorentz Scalar (0,0)-Tensors and higher-rank SR Tensors. Let me repeat: You can mathematically build ALL the Lorentz Scalars and larger SR Tensors from SR 4-Vectors. 4-Vectors are likewise easily shown to be related to the standard 3-vectors that are used in Newtonian classical mechanics, Maxwellian classical electromagnetism, and standard quantum theory. Each 4-Vector also connects a special relativistically-related scalar to a 3-vector: ex. Temporal energy (E) & Spatial 3-momentum (p) as 4-Momentum P = (E/c,p). Why 4-Vectors as opposed to some of the more abstract mathematical approaches to Quantum Mechanics (QM)? Because the components of 4-Vectors are physical properties that can actually be empirically measured. Experiment is the ultimate arbiter of which theories actually correspond to reality. If your quantum logics and string theories give no testable/measurable predictions, then they are basically useless for real, actual, empirical physics. In this treatise, I will first extensively demonstrate how 4-Vectors are used in the context of Special Relativity (SR),and then show that their use in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (RQM) is really not fundamentally different. Quantum Principles, without need of QM Axioms, then emerge in a natural and elegant way.
Ever since quantum mechanics was first developed, it has been unclear what it really tells us about reality. A novel framework, based on 5 axioms, is presented here which offers an interpretation of quantum mechanics unlike any considered thus far: It is postulated that physical objects can exist in one of two distinct modes, based on whether they have an intrinsic actual spacetime history or not. If they do, their mode of existence is actual and they can be described by classical physics. If they do not, then their mode of existence is called actualizable and they must be described in terms of an equal-weight superposition of all possible actualizable (not actual) histories. The distinction is based on an axiom according to which there exists a limit in which spacetime reduces to a one-dimension reduced version, called areatime, and that objects which merely actualizably exist in spacetime actually exist in areatime. The operational comparison of the passage of time for such objects to the passage of time for a spacetime observer is postulated to be made possible by what is called an angular dual bilateral symmetry. This symmetry can be decomposed into the superposition of two imaginary phase angles of opposite sign. To mathematically describe the spacetime manifestation of objects which actually exist in areatime, each actualizable spacetime history is associated with an actualizable path, which in turn is associated with the imaginary phases. For a single free particle, the complex exponent is identified with a term proportional to its relativistic action, thus recovering the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics. Although based on some highly unfamiliar ideas, this framework appears to render at least some of the usual mysteries connected with quantum mechanics amenable to simple conceptual understanding. It also appears to connect the foundations of quantum theory to the foundation of the special theory of relativity while clarifying its relationship to the general theory of relativity and yields a testable prediction about a type of experiment, as yet unperformed, which under the current paradigm is utterly unexpected, namely, that the gravitational field of radiation is zero. The paper concludes with some speculations about how the theory may be extended to a metatheory of nature.(Note the paper was edited on 3-October-2011 to remove one sentence on page 7)
Classical mechanics of a free particle is based on Newtonian mechanics and Lagrangian/Hamilton theories. A single frame of reference is chosen (the lab) and particles with the same mass mo (for example) moving at different velocities are considered in the free particle scenario (i.e in the absence of force (potentials)). We argue that the above is identical to considering a single particle with mass mo at time=to and x=0 viewed by various frames moving at different constant velocities -v. From the point of view of each frame, the particle moves at a velocity v. Thus the Newtonian picture of an mo particle moving at different speeds may be considered as a problem of special relativity. We argue (as in (1)) that (x,t)=(0,t) transforms to (x’,t’) such that x’/t’=v. If one uses a metric (1 0) (first row) (0 -1) second row, one may derive special relativistic relationships. In particular, one may obtain the Lorentz invariant -Et + px if (p,E) and (x,t) transform in the same manner. We argue that the relationships obtained from special relativity pertain to classical mechanics and so one may mathematically obtain a function L(v) such that p=dL/dv and E=pv - L for a free particle. In other words, special relativity governs Lagrangian results in the free particle case and is not really needed (in this special case). More importantly, it is special relativity which links E with t and p with x. As noted above, if one considers Netwonian mechanics in a single frame, the notion of special relativity does not arise, but the scaling of time by E and of x by p does i.e. A= -Et+px is the classical action both relativistically and nonrelativistically. It is just not written in this way usually (i.e. A = -mo t sqrt(1-vv) (c=1) relatiivstically and A =t .5mo vv nonrelativistically) We argued in (2) that scaling must manifest itself physically and that it accounts for the physical wavelength in quantum mechanics. We argue that the quantum mechanics of a free particle ultimately follows from special relativity. As a result, ideas of quantum mechanics would not have appeared in Newtonian mechanics nor Lagrangian or Hamiltonian theories. When special relativity was developed it focused on transformations related to different frames, but these are equivalent to describing one frame with many different velocities (same mo). Thus the physics in one frame is governed by special relativity even if it is nonrelativistic. We argue that the notion of the wavelength which appears even in the Schrodinger formalism follows from scaling of x by p which ultimately originates from special relativity. In other words, both the Lagrangian formalism and quantum mechanics follow from special relativity in the free particle case. We argue that free particle quantum mechanics is the starting point of overall quantum mechanics.
Special relativity seems to be associated with linking physical relations as seen in one frame with those as seen in a frame moving at a speed relative to such a frame. A constant speed is often used for the moving frame. This suggests that classically there is a special frame for a particle with rest mass called a rest frame. In such a case, one simply introduces a parameter for rest mass and does not worry about the complicated motion and interactions which actually create the rest mass. It seems that even quantum mechanics, which considers a particle to be moving as one does not know its location, one uses the idea of a potential V(x) which in principle is associated with a very large rest mass, presumably at rest as no variables of such a rest mass appear in the Klein-Gordon or Dirac equations. It seems that one uses a preferred frame when solving relativistic quantum mechanical equations. Furthermore, given V(x) and a bound state with exp(-i E bound t), E applies to the overall bound system, not to a possible exp(ipx) constituent. The special relativistic invariant equation seems to exist at the system level, like with the rest mass and one may apparently calculate E in the special rest frame of the large mass and hence find a rest mass of the bound system, i..e large rest mass*cc + mo cc + E, mo is the rest mass of the single bound particle. As a result of the use of the special rest mass frame for the V(x) producing large rest mass, it seems that one does not have to worry about special relativistic constraints on the interaction with V(x), as only one frame is involved. In other words, a bound calculation is about finding a new rest mass for an overall new system. Then this system may be used in Lorentz boosts. One simplifies by working in the rest frame of the mass creating V(x). Perhaps surprisingly then, we note that exp(-iEt+ipx) for a free particle is Lorentz invariant and in fact must be Lorentz invariant for the following reason. Imagine that one wishes to create a probability for free particles which is linked with conservation of momentum. Any p must have the same real value weight because for free particles there is no bias for one p or the other. There is, however, a bias for a p1 and p2. It should have the same probability as a p3 and p4, if p1+p2 = p3+p4. (We use one dimension for simplicity.) As a result, exp(ip) seems to be a probability which respects these conditions. The problem is that one may have p=m1v1=m2v2 hence (E1,p) and (E2,p). With respect to momentum, it is irrelevant if one particle has E1 and the other E2, but not if one does a Lorentz boost. Then, in one case: p→ g(v) p + g(v) v E1 and in the second, p→ g(v) p + g(v)vE2. Here g(v) =1/sqrt(1-vv/cc). In other words, p is the same for each particle in one frame and not in the other which violates conservation of momentum because in frame 1 both particles can complete the same conservation of momentum equation, but in the second frame this is not the case, because each has a different momentum. Thus, exp(ip) cannot hold. One requires a linear form in p which is Lorentz invariant, i.e. exp(-iEt+ipx), we argue (and have done so in previous notes). We see now that momentum probability is linked with space in exp(ipx). The idea seems to be that for free colliding particles there is no preferred frame and the probabilities used must reflect this Lorentz invariance. As a result, we argue that a free particle probability in E,p arises because of Lorentz invariance, but then apply it to a V(x) problem and no longer worry about Lorentz invariance at the interaction level. V(x) with no associated rest mass variables assumes a rest frame for the V(x) producing mass. A Lorentz boost which then invalidates exp(ip), would only apply to the total rest mass of the bound particle system which has no overall momentum. It seems that one does apply the Lorentz transformation to the interaction of exp(ipx)’s with V(x). One is only interested in the overall bound system as a single entity for special relativity. As a result, one may only impose momentum considerations as V(x) is a spatial function and one must link it with exp(ipx). In fact, one may write V(x) = Sum over k Vk exp(ikx) to associate it with momentum hits linked with Vk energies, which already moves away from the idea of special relativity as Vk and k are not linked as a 4-vector. The idea of exp(ip1x)exp(i k1x) = exp(ip2x)exp(ik2x), however, seems to still hold (as it does for free particles), linking these two values (i.e. Vk1 and Vk2) with (p1+k)(p1+k) exp(i (p1+k)x). Lorentz invariance for a particle with rest mass seems to be linked with the idea that one ultimately has a rest frame for the particle. One then establishes a relation between the rest mass in one frame and its new E and p as seen by another frame. One does not, however, need to impose Lorentz invariance conditions on the interaction which creates the rest mass it seems. For example, exp(-iEt+ipx) is the Lorentz form used to describe a free particle, but exp(ipx) is the only portion used to describe its interaction with V(x) in the rest frame of the large mass creating V(x). Furthermore, exp(-iEt+ipx) ensures conservation of energy and p for a free particle, but in an interaction case, that does not happen as the potential may absorb energy.
The behavior of classical macroscopic particles – from baseballs to planets – is governed by Newtonian mechanics as we have described in the first chapters of this book. The behavior of very small particles, on the other hand, is governed by an entirely different collection of equations and rules that go under the name of “quantum mechanics” and these particles are referred to as quantum particles. These rules have analogies to classical mechanics, but are fundamentally different and somewhat mysterious as we discussed in Chapter 8. The fundamental principles of quantum mechanics cannot be proven to be correct. They were developed based on the results of experimental observation, by analogy with classical mechanics, and through the consideration of logical implications of the formalisms used. There is no way to derive the fundamental elements of quantum mechanics, any more than one could predict from first principles that Newtonian forces should add as vectors. On the other hand, quantum mechanics is among the most rigorously tested theories in science, and the predictions of quantum mechanics have, so far, always been in agreement with experiment. In this chapter, we will present quantum mechanics as a series of postulates and examine their implications in application to simple one-dimensional systems. In the next chapter we will examine quantum effects in real systems including atoms, molecules, crystals, and artificially engineered nano-structures. Postulates of quantum mechanics QM Postulate 1: A quantum particle is described by a wave function Ψ( x , y , z , t ) which is a function of spatial coordinates and time. All physically determinable quantities can be derived from the wave function Ψ( x , y , z , t ) ; quantities which cannot be found from the wave function are not physically meaningful. Note that some things that one could ask about a quantum particle, for example the exact position and simultaneous exact momentum of a particle, are not derivable from the wave function and are therefore considered indeterminate (or uncertain ). These are things which cannot ever be known about a particle, and, as such, they are meaningless to contemplate.
The difficulties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difficulties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difficult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difficulties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can influence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justified and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.
A type of mechanics will be presented that possesses some distinctive properties. On the one hand, its physical description & rules of operation are readily comprehensible & intuitively clear. On the other, it fully satisfies all observable predictions of non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Within it, particles exist at points in space, follow continuous, piecewise differentiable paths, and their linear momentum is equal to their mass times their velocity along their path. Yet the probabilities for position and momentum, conditioned on the state of the particle's environment, follow the rules of quantum theory. Indeed, all observable consequences of quantum theory are satisfied; particles can be entangled, have intrinsic spin, this spin is not local to the particle, particle identity can effect probabilities, and so forth. All the rules of quantum mechanics are obeyed, and all arise in a straightforward fashion. After this is established, connections will be drawn out between this type of mechanics and other types of quantum worlds; those that obey Bohmian mechanics, stochastic mechanics, the many worlds interpretation, and physical collapse. In the final section, a relativistic version of the mechanics will be presented.