In previous notes (1) we argued that the free particle action A (either nonrelativistic or relativistic) may have v (velocity) written as x/t and x and t varied independently to yield: dA/dx partial = p and dA/t partial = -E with A=-Et+px, the Lorentz invariant classical Action = t Lagrangian. We further argued that one may write eigenvalue equations i.e. -idexp(iA)/dx partial = p exp(iA) and idexp(iA)/dt partial = Eexp(iA) and call exp(iA) a type of probability. We noted that if a potential is present one may use P(p/x)= a(p)exp(ipx)/W(x) [W(x)=wavefunction = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx)] and establish a conservation of energy equation KE(x) + V(x) = E such that there exists the same constant E at each x. We described this in two ways. First E represents binding energy so at each x one has the same binding energy i.e. each x point maps to the same E as part of the mass of an overall moving system. Secondly, we argued that E was a parameter indicating that equilibrium existed at each x point, much like temperature T. In this note we wish to consider a different idea suggested in (2), namely that if one has a quantum state: W(x)= Sum over n a(n,t) Wn(x) this may be written as: <i |H| j> a*(i,t)a(j,t) = <W H W>.. If Hamilton’s equations for complex variables are applied to these then: i d/dt partial a*(i,t) = d/da(i,t) partial { <W H W> } ((A)) (2) argues this is the time-dependent Schrodinger equation. In other words, probability weights of the Schrodinger equations (which are complex) obey Hamilton’s classical equation. In this note, we point out that the formalism dA/dx partial = p already introduces operators into classical physics, so it follows that H is an operator which may act on states. We consider the idea of ((A)) as applied to a free quantum particle moving. Next, we apply ((A)) to a quantum bound state and argue that a classical Hamilton’s equation applied to d/dt a(p) partial may describe equilibrium. Finally ((A)) may be applied to a sum of eigenstates, but this is already shown in (2).
In previous notes (1) we argued that the free particle action A (either nonrelativistic or relativistic) may have v (velocity) written as x/t and x and t varied independently to yield: dA/dx partial = p and dA/t partial = -E with A=-Et+px, the Lorentz invariant classical Action = t Lagrangian. We further argued that one may write eigenvalue equations i.e. -idexp(iA)/dx partial = p exp(iA) and idexp(iA)/dt partial = Eexp(iA) and call exp(iA) a type of probability. We noted that if a potential is present one may use P(p/x)= a(p)exp(ipx)/W(x) [W(x)=wavefunction = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx)] and establish a conservation of energy equation KE(x) + V(x) = E such that there exists the same constant E at each x. We described this in two ways. First E represents binding energy so at each x one has the same binding energy i.e. each x point maps to the same E as part of the mass of an overall moving system. Secondly, we argued that E was a parameter indicating that equilibrium existed at each x point, much like temperature T. In this note we wish to consider a different idea suggested in (2), namely that if one has a quantum state: W(x)= Sum over n a(n,t) Wn(x) this may be written as: <i |H| j> a*(i,t)a(j,t) = <W H W>.. If Hamilton’s equations for complex variables are applied to these then: i d/dt partial a*(i,t) = d/da(i,t) partial { <W H W> } ((A)) (2) argues this is the time-dependent Schrodinger equation. In other words, probability weights of the Schrodinger equations (which are complex) obey Hamilton’s classical equation. In this note, we point out that the formalism dA/dx partial = p already introduces operators into classical physics, so it follows that H is an operator which may act on states. We consider the idea of ((A)) as applied to a free quantum particle moving. Next, we apply ((A)) to a quantum bound state and argue that a classical Hamilton’s equation applied to d/dt a(p) partial may describe equilibrium. Finally ((A)) may be applied to a sum of eigenstates, but this is already shown in (2).
In the literature (1), the Schrodinger equation: {p1p1/2m + p2p2/2m + V(x1-x2)} W(x1,x2,t) = id/dt partial W(x1,x2,t) may be transformed using P=p1+p2 and (p=m1p2-m2p1)/M and x=x1=x2 where M=m1+m2 ((1)). This leads to a bound Schrodinger equation in x and a “center of mass” equation” in P i..e Hcm =PP/2M which depends on m1 and m2, but not binding energy. . In a previous note, we argued that a free particle’s classical action A (relativistic or nonrelativistic) may be obtained by setting v=x/t and treating x and t as independent (2). This leads to dA/dx partial=p and dA/dt partial = -E. One may write eigenvalue equations: -id/dx partial exp(iA) = pexp(iA) and id/dt partial exp(iA) = E exp(iA). A solution is A=-Et+px with E,t,p and x independent. -Et+px is a Lorentz invariant and this form is used in both relativistic and nonrelativistic quantum mechanics (although E and p have different values). We argue that a free particle rest mass mo may actually involve internal quantum physics, yet the “system” is replaced with a parameter mo and exp(-iEt+px) used to describe it. One may try to apply this approach to a bound system, but exp(-iEt+px) is a statistical probability like object. Thus one needs a statistical theory. We have suggested using an ensemble of exp(-iEt+px) with E=En for all p to indicate a resonance. Then: { Sum over p pp/2m a(p)exp(ipx) } / {Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) } + V(x) = En ((2)) This is the Schrodinger bound equation. We argue that W=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) should be real and this implies that Sum over p a(p) p exp(ipx) = 0 i.e. average momentum for this type of average is 0. As a result, one may create a 4-vector using { 0, mcc + En} and use the Lorentz boost approach to find the momentum and energy in a moving frame. One may then take the nonrelativistic limit to find kinetic energy i.e. the full center of mass kinetic energy. We argue that this is equivalent to considering exp(-iEt+ipx) for the overall bound system which is now translating in space. We argue that ((2)) is a different approach to ((1)) in that binding energy, which may be significant with respect to mcc, should be part of the overall energy of the translating bound system which is called the “center of mass” system in the literature.
The classical Lagrangian L leads to Newton’s second law which is equivalent to an energy-momentum conservation equation. The classical action: A = Integral dt1 L(t1) for a constant velocity v=X/T may be varied with respect X and T i.e dA/dT = -E and dA/dX= p. Thus, one may create a differential equation in (dA/dT)(dA/dt) and dA/dx dA/dx for the EE=pp+momo equation. Alternatively, one may create other differential equations. Quantum mechanical differential equations, however, are quite different with exp(i Action) being a solution. Even this may be written as the solution of a non-Schrodinger equation i.e. id/dt exp(iAction) = -1/2m (d/dx exp(iAction)) (d/dx exp(iAction)) for a free particle. For a constant velocity, exp(iAction) is equivalent to exp(ipx-iEt). We argue that this solution is statistical because it separates x and t (as independent variables) and holds for all x and t. Thus, quantum mechanics seems to be a statistical approach using free solutions exp(ipx-iEt) to create an ensemble as in classical statistical mechanics. A difference, however, is that exp(ipx-iEt) “interferes” even if one only takes the real part cos(px-Et). We consider the case of a particle in a box with infinite potential walls to argue that the periodicity is warranted i.e. positive and negative values (interference). Even though the modulus is 1, exp(ipx-iEt) may be operated on by various generators e.g. d/dx the generator of translations. This is analogous to operations on vectors in linear algebra. As noted above, quantum equations are not only energy-momentum conservation equations. They yield a wavefunction W(x) which is an unusual momentum distribution W(x)=Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx). exp(-iEt) holds overall because average E is the same at each x. Thus, one needs a W(x) which leads to a momentum-energy conservation equation, but also satisfies certain boundary conditions which become linked to spatial density= W*W. This leads to discrete energy levels and also cases of humps and troughs in W(x). We attempt to investigate some of these ideas in this note.
In a previous note (1) we argued that both the relativistic A= -mo t sqrt(1-vv) and nonrelativistic A=t .5mvv classical free particle actions may be written with v=x/t and x and t varied independently to yield: dA/dx partial = p and dA/dt partial = -E. Thus A is equivalent to -Et + px for a free particle with x and t being treated as independent. We argue in this note that such an assumption is equivalent to a statistical picture for a free particle even at the classical level because x and t are treated as independent. Thus a constant p may occur at any x because no time is linked to x. Given that all space points are the same for constant p one expects a constant probability at all x points. Knowing p exactly means not knowing anything about which x one has. Secondly, one may create an ensemble of free particle p classical actions for a situation containing a potential V(x). Given that x and t are independent, there cannot be any notion of single p accelerating, although a vrms from an ensemble may. At a given x (x known exactly) one does not know which p is present. Thus the ideas of uncertainty of p and x follow immediately from this picture. If one considers a single particle and an ensemble of free particles in the x-t independent scenario, then each free particle action p is linked to A=-Et+px where E=pp/2m. This ensemble would arguably be stirred up by a potential V(x). If one wishes to consider an equilibrium scenario for which there is an overall En for the bound system one would expect an overall Ent for the system and for -pp/2m t pieces to disappear. Thus we postulate that pp/2m +{p part} G(p’s k’s) = En for all p where {p part}G(p’s, k’s) is an unknown function and V(x)=Sum over k Vk exp(ikx). Next one may consider the spatial situation for which V(x) is the classical potential for a single particle. The kinetic energy follows from an ensemble of free particles with the overall -Et removed. From classical considerations one would expect to have a KE(x). Thus one expects: KE(x) = {Sum over p a(p) f(px) } / {Sum over a(p)f(px) } with f(px), an orthonormal basis set, because the action contains px. (It is orthonormal because one wishes the identity of p to exist if not at a point, then over all of x.) We try to argue in this note that f(px)=exp(ipx), the momentum eigenstate which follows from A=-Et+px. We find G(p’s, k’s) which implies entanglement or mixing of a given p state with other p and k states from the potential V(x)=Sum over k Vk exp(ikx). Thus one expects an entropy linked to this momentum entanglement. Given the form exp(ipx), finding a set of ap’s which satisfy pp/2m + G(p’s, k’s)=En leads to a spatial distribution W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) so there should be an entropy contribution from this spatial part as well. In classical statistical mechanics one has both momentum and spatial contributions to entropy. We argue for S=Sp+Sx, but note that even though px has x, p symmetry as does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle var x var p >= hbar/2, Sp and Sx may not be symmetric in terms of important parameters such as n, energy level. In other words, Sp the entanglement entropy with V(x) may be the driver entropy sensitive to energy level changes while Sx the resulting spatial density may not be as sensitive. Furthermore the overall entropy Sp+Sx gives information about uncertainties in x and p as is already known in the literature where bound state Sp+Sx bounds are given.
In a previous note (1) we argued that the free particle classical action A (relativistic or nonrelativistic) may be written in terms of v=x/t and then varied in x and t independently. One finds that dA/dx partial = p and dA/dt partial = -E implying A= -Et+px with x and t independent. This is the opposite of the classical mechanical idea of x(t). Creating an eigenvalue equation yields -id/dx partial exp(iA) = pexp(iA) and id/dt partial exp(iA) = Eexp(iA). exp(iA) plays the role of an unusual type of probability we argue which describes two dimensional periodicity (cos(px) and sin(px) ). We have argued that the quantum particle is the medium for a two dimensional wavelike motion of an energy-momentum wave. A wave type structure is needed to describe dynamics (like a classical wave), but unlike a classical wave two dimensions are required because there is no preference of any x point for a free particle. Both cos(px) and sin(px) both treat x in a preferential manner as their values vary with x. For a classical wave this is fine because the creation point of the wave imposes boundary conditions, but there is no such boundary condition imposed on a free particle. exp(ipx-iEt0 must somehow then link to P(x)=constant. One may note that exp(-iA)exp(iA) = 1 for the free particle. This may be argued to be linked to spatial invariance i.e. P(x)=constant where P(x) is not exp(ipx). Here we argue that exp(-iA)exp(iA) represents a product of two unusual probabilities , one for motion in a certain direction and the other for the time reversed scenario. If the quantum particle is the medium of an energy-momentum wave exp(-iEt+ipx), then the product of the regular and time reversed unusual probabilities cancel or undo each other. In other words one does not see any change in space as long as one has a noninteracting exp(-iEt+ipx) . Given that -id/dx is a linear operator this product yields a momentum of 0. We consider this idea and its implications on a momentum distribution Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) which may represent a bound state or other states. In particular, it seems that P(x)=W*(x,t)W(x,t) which yields a classical type of probability (P(x) real, positive and normalized to 1) is linked to a product (merging) of forward and time reversed situations so that any spatial density which remain due to the quantum particle acting as a medium for an energy-momentum wave (as well as the time reversed part) would represent an actual change in spatial density. exp(ipx) already contains two periodic spatial functions (cos(px) and sin(px)), but does not manifest it unless there is an interaction.
In a previous note (1), we argued that both free particle quantum and classical mechanics follow from an energy flow/flux scheme based on: d/dx (partial) A(x,t) = p ((1a)) and d/dt (partial) A(x,t) = -E ((1b)) A(x,t) turns out to be the classical action tL(v) (L=Lagrangian) with x/t=v and the above hold for both the relativistic and nonrelativistic cases. We further argued that ((1a)) and ((1b)) lead to two sets of solutions, one classical and the other quantum. The classical solution assumes dt→0 and dx→0 i.e. flows may be followed at each point in space (and time). In (2) we argued that ((1a)) and ((1b)) are consistent with p=dL/dv (partial) and H=E= pv - L. From these together with p=Ev one may find: E=mo/sqrt(1-vv) (c=1). For the nonrelativistic case, E= mocc + .5mvv. In this classical analysis one may resolve each t and x, thus if one has a function V(x) (potential) representing energy, the nonrelativistic result is: (E-V(x)) = .5mvv. The quantum solution to ((1a)) and ((1b)) is very different. It establishes eigenvalue equations i.e. id/dt (partial) exp(iA) = E exp(iA) and -id/dx (partial) exp(iA) = p exp(iA) for the free particle. The importance of this is that new physical mechanisms seem to come into play. A= -Et+px so exp(-iEt+ipx) suggests time and spatial regions proportional to 1/E and 1/p in which there is some ambiguity i.e. there are two dimensions and there seems to be some kind of probability for the particle to be in one dimension or the other at x (and similar results for t) i.e. cos(px) and sin(px). As a result, one may not have dx→0 and dt→0. Furthermore, it is argued that a two dimensional associated probability scheme must accompany energy flow. At first this may seem strange, but if one considers a photon which has an energy flow Ev, one has electric and magnetic fields perpendicular to each other and perpendicular to the motion which undergo periodic motion linked to cos(wt) and sin(wt). Thus, the quantum particle periodic probability mimics an already known result from Maxwell’s equations. In fact, we have argued that for fermions there is additional angular motion i.e. spin linked with the recognition of 3-space. Thus we argue that quantum mechanics is involved with periodic type probability motions which are needed to resolve dx and dt (linked to exp(-iEt+ipx) and periodic probability motion (spin) and are also needed for fermions to resolve 3-space as two p vectors may have point in different directions (i.e. spin). Quantum mechanics therefore seems to be a very different theory from classical mechanics, but both appear to be based on energy flow/flux. As a result, the average of a quantum bound state should be linked to a classical system we argue in this note as one only deals with energy flow/flux.
Traditionally, a quantum bound state is said to approach classical behaviour for large n (from En=energy). The problem is that peak and valley spatial density regions still exist although an envelope passing roughly through the peaks of Wn(x)Wn(x) (where Wn is the wavefunction) matches C/v(x) where v(x) is the classical spatial density. This is proportional to delta t the time a particle spends within constant sized delta x pieces of a bound path. Alternatively, a wave packet is frequently used, but its width tends to increase in time. In a previous note (1), we argued that one may write the free particle classical action (relativistic or nonrelativistic) as A= -Et+px with t and x being independent. This leads to dA/dx partial = p and dA/dt partial = -E. Creating eigenvalue equations -i d/dx partial exp(iA) = p exp(iA) and id/dt partial exp(iA) = Eexp(iA), one may see that exp(-iEt) is periodic in two dimensions in time and exp(ipx) in space. In this note we examine whether the separation of x and t suggests two schemes for the spatial region. The first scheme is linked to exp(-iEt) where E is average energy at each x. In such a case E=pp/2m (for a free particle) at each x and x=p/m t. exp(ipx) on the other hand demonstrates fluctuations in two dimensions within this region which would not normally be seen in the classical realm due to lack of resolution. If one considers a bound system, these two schemes become clearer. exp(-En t) is associated with an energy En equal to KEclassical(x) + V(x). On the other hand there is the quantum momentum distribution Wn(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) such that: [Sum over p pp/2m a(p)exp(ipx)]/Wn(x) + V(x) = En ((A)) As a result, the momentum distribution Wn(x) is linked to En at each x through ((A)). The two dimensional waves exp(ipx) interfere to create an rms v which is classical. This classical motion exists for all n. Wn(x)Wn(x) on the other hand demonstrates quantum fluctuations, but these include also an rms probability of C/v(x) where v(x) is the classical velocity. For large n, C/v(x) becomes the envelope of Wn(x)Wn(x) and so quantum fluctuations are within the envelope. For lower n we argue that C/v(x) must be “removed” from Wn(x)Wn(x) to see the full quantum fluctuations, but that C/v(x) still applies to the classical rms motion which is present and associated with exp(-iEnt). In other words we use neither wavepackets or the idea that classical mechanics is involved only for large n. Classical mechanics is present for all n in ((A)).