Using the one-dimensional Schr\{o}dinger equation as an example, it is shown
that for any self-adjoint operator it is possible to uniquely predict the value
of the corresponding observable (including momentum, kinetic and total energy
of the particle) at that spatial point where the particle will be accidentally
detected at a given instant of time. It is shown that the Schr\{o}dinger
formalism ensures the fulfillment of the relations of wave-particle duality,
which connect the energy and momentum of a particle with the frequency and wave
number of the wave function, for any spatial point and any instant of time.
Using the one-dimensional Schr{o}dinger equation as an example, it is shown
that for any self-adjoint operator it is possible to uniquely predict the value
of the corresponding observable (including momentum, kinetic and total energy
of the particle) at that spatial point where the particle will be accidentally
detected at a given instant of time. It is shown that the Schr{o}dinger
formalism ensures the fulfillment of the relations of wave-particle duality,
which connect the energy and momentum of a particle with the frequency and wave
number of the wave function, for any spatial point and any instant of time.
Abstract It is demonstrated with a particle in the one-dimensional configuration space (OCS) that knowledge of the wave function supposes more than statistical restrictions on the results of measurements. In particular, apart from the probability (density) field in the OCS, the wave function also suggests the existence of two fields that predict two (equiprobable) particle momentum values for each OCS point, and the average of these two momenta at each point is related only to the wave function phase, while their difference (coinciding with the Bohm quantum-mechanical potential) is related only to the wave function amplitude. An analogue of the Heisenberg uncertainty relation is obtained for both fields.
Abstract In Non-Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, the Schr¨odinger equation describes the evolution of a quantum system as a superposition of different states, but cannot explain why the system is only ever measured to be in one of these states. Here we show a new dynamical wave equation for the evolution of the wave function, and then apply this equation to a variety of different physical cases, showing how the wave function changes when we move from one potential to another. We then show how a measurement in quantum mechanics is an example of a potential changing the possible eigenvalues associated with a quantum system. The dynamical process of a measurement that evolves the wave function not only returns a single eigenvalue for the basis it is measuring, but also returns a new Hamiltonian with corresponding eigenvalues. This shows, contrary to some interpretations, that the wave function is continuous after measurement.
The Schrödinger equation is derived classically assuming that particles present local \nrandom spatial fluctuations compatible with the presence of the zero-point field. With- \nout specifying the forces arising from this permanent matter-field interaction but ex- \nploring its fundamental properties (homogeneity, isotropy and random aspect) to justify \nthe emergence of the continuity equation in one-particle context, these fluctuations are \ndescribed in terms of the probability density. Specifically, the starting point is the as- \nsumption that the local activities, which turn the path followed by the particle totally \nunpredictable, must be associated with an energy proportional to \n@ \nP \n=@ \nt \n. The polar form \nof the wave function, which connects the obtained classical equations with the corre- \nsponding quantum equation, emerges as a by-product of the approach.
The Schrodinger equation has been considered to be a postulate of quantum physics, but it is also perceived and derived heuristically as the quantum equivalent of the classical energy relation. We indicate that the Schrodinger equation cannot be a physical postulate, and we show that the heuristic derivations wrongly consider that the particle kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the momentum operator acting on the wavefunction. The correct term is proportional to the square of the momentum. Analyzing particle interactions, we realize that particles have multiple virtual motions and that each motion is accompanied by a wave that has constant amplitude. Accordingly, we define the wavefunction as the superposition of the virtual waves of the particle. As a result, quantum mechanics becomes a local and global theory, while in the traditional formulation it is a local theory. In several interaction settings we can tell what particle motions arise and explain the outcomes in simple and tangible terms. Most importantly, the mathematical foundation of quantum mechanics becomes clear and justified, and we derive the Schrodinger, Dirac, etc. equations as the conditions the wavefunction must satisfy at each space-time point in order to fulfill the respective total energy equation.
In the previous chapters we have seen how solutions to the time-independent Schro¨dinger equation correspond to the allowed energy levels of a quantum system and how, in the hydrogen atom case in particular, the results of this procedure are in extremely good agreement with the results of experiment. It would be possible to extend the process to predict the energy levels of other atoms. We would find that the corresponding Schro¨dinger equations could no longer be solved exactly, but that approximations could be developed which, when combined with computational techniques, would lead to predicted energy levels that were once again in very good agreement with experiment. However, such a programme, most of which is beyond the scope of this book in any case, would be premature at this stage as we have not yet established a general procedure that will do more than predict the allowed energy levels of a particle moving in a potential and the probability that it is in the vicinity of a particular point in space. We do not yet know, for example, how to predict the momentum of an electron in a hydrogen atom; we do not even know if it has a definite value or if it can only be specified by a probability distribution, as is the case for electron position. We have as yet no way of predicting under what conditions an atom undergoes a transition from one state to another, emitting energy in the form of a quantum of electromagnetic radiation.
Some aspects of the interpretation of microscopic physics in terms of quantum theory are discussed. It is first emphasized that quantum theory is formulated in a Cartesian coordinate system; in other coordinates the result obtained with the help of the Hamiltonian formalism and commutation relations between ''canonically conjugated'' coordinate and momentum operators leads to a wrong version of quantum mechanics. In this connection the Feynman integral formalism is also discussed. In this formalism the measure is not well defined, and there is no idea how to distinguish between the true version of quantum mechanics and an incorrect one. In this respect, the Feynman approach consists of a mnemonic rule to generate perturbation series from an undefined zero-order term. The origin of time in the quantum framework is then analyzed in detail and illustrated by the example of atomic collisions. It is shown that the time-dependent Schr ¨ odinger equation for the closed three-body (two nuclei + electron) system has no physical meaning because in the high-impact energy limit it transforms into an equation with two independent time-like variables; time naturally appears in the stationary Schr ¨ odinger equation as a result of extraction of a classical subsystem (two nuclei) from a closed three-body system. Finally, following the well-known Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky experiment and Bell's inequality, we reiterate that the wave function must be interpreted as an actual field of information, in a form as elementary as the usual material particles and electromagnetic fields. In fact, experimental measurements transfer this quantum information field into the classical world, which is directly discernable. In my conclusion, the relation between physical reality and its mathematical formulation is discussed. 2012 Physics Essays Publication. (DOI: 10.4006/0836-1398-25.1.27) R ´