In previous notes (1)(2), we argued one may write two flow/flux equations for a free particle using an unknown function A(x,t) i.e. d/dx (partial) A = E(v) v ((1a)) and d/dt (partial) A = -E(v) ((1b)) where E(v) is energy which is a function of rest mass and velocity v=constant. A(x,t), but after taking derivatives, x/t is set to v. As shown in (2), one may write A=tL(v) and find E(v)=mo/sqrt(1-vv) (c=1) (and p=Ev) i.e. the result of special relativity. Thus special relativity seems to follow directly from a flow/flux equation where motion v increases energy. Alternatively, one may obtain both relativistic/nonrelativistic quantum mechanics for a free particle, by converting ((1a)) and ((1b)) into differential equations i.e. id/dt exp(iA) = Eexp(iA) and -id/dx exp(iA) = pexp(iA) with A=-Et+px yielding the same result. In both cases, physical motion v has physical implications. For special relativity, energy changes from mo to mo/sqrt(1-vv) and there are effects on clocks and lengths. For quantum mechanics there is time and space resolution linked to dx→1/p and dt→1/E. In this note we try to investigate if there is a connection between the two. In particular we try to see why -Et+px within the free particle wavefunction exp(-iEt+px) is a Lorentz invariant.
In previous notes (1)(2), we argued one may write two flow/flux equations for a free particle using an unknown function A(x,t) i.e. d/dx (partial) A = E(v) v ((1a)) and d/dt (partial) A = -E(v) ((1b)) where E(v) is energy which is a function of rest mass and velocity v=constant. A(x,t), but after taking derivatives, x/t is set to v. As shown in (2), one may write A=tL(v) and find E(v)=mo/sqrt(1-vv) (c=1) (and p=Ev) i.e. the result of special relativity. Thus special relativity seems to follow directly from a flow/flux equation where motion v increases energy. Alternatively, one may obtain both relativistic/nonrelativistic quantum mechanics for a free particle, by converting ((1a)) and ((1b)) into differential equations i.e. id/dt exp(iA) = Eexp(iA) and -id/dx exp(iA) = pexp(iA) with A=-Et+px yielding the same result. In both cases, physical motion v has physical implications. For special relativity, energy changes from mo to mo/sqrt(1-vv) and there are effects on clocks and lengths. For quantum mechanics there is time and space resolution linked to dx→1/p and dt→1/E. In this note we try to investigate if there is a connection between the two. In particular we try to see why -Et+px within the free particle wavefunction exp(-iEt+px) is a Lorentz invariant.
In a previous note (1), we argued that one may obtain either the Schrodinger or Klein-Gordon equation from the classical free particle Action = Integral dt L = T L(v) by writing v=X/T and using: p= dAction/dx partial and -E = dAction/dt partial. This may be used together with an energy-momentum relationship E=pp/2m (nonrelativistic) or EE=pp + mm (relativistic) to create an eigenfunction equation by using exp(i Action) as a solution. This is equivalent to exp(-iEt+ipx). In (2), we argued that if one generalizes momentum p to Ev where E(v) is energy and uses nonrelativsitic Lagrangian equations: p=dL/dv and H=E= pv-L, one may find the relativistic Lagrangian for a free particle which in turn yields p= d/dx (TL) partial and -E= d/dt (TL) partial i.e. the form of energy and momentum for a free particle in special relativity. In this brief note, we argue that the Action/Lagrangian formalism for a free particle seems to follow directly from a flow(flux) type equation namely: d/dx Action partial = p = Ev (= mo v nonrelativistic limit). If energy is flowing out of a region given by the usual Gaussian flux equation d/dx function (i.e. grad dot vector) represented by d/dx Action partial, then one is losing energy E(v) in this region. Thus d/dt Action partial = -E. As a result, one should analyze the problem in special relativity i.e. use p=E(v) v (but no explicit form for E(v)) and then take the nonrelativistic limit to get the nonrelativistic approximation. As a result, assuming a flow problem with a function Action(x,t) leads to the Lagrangian formalism. From this one may obtain the forms of special relativity, classical equations of motion and quantum mechanics for a free particle (relativistic or nonrelativistic).
In Part I we argued that two flow equations for a free particle, namely: d/dx (partial) A(x,t) = p ((1a)) and d/dt (partial) A(x,t) = -E ((1a)) may be applied to both particles with rest mass and those without. In fact we argue that there are at least three scenarios associated with ((1a)) and ((1b)). The first is classical mechanics for a particle with rest mass mo and constant velocity. Using ((1a)) and ((1b)) with p=E(v)v this scenario yields special relativity. A second solution is to write ((1a)) and ((1b)) as eigenvalue equations: -id/dx (partial) exp(iA) = p exp(iA) and id/dt (partial) exp(iA)= E exp(iA) where A=-Et+px. This yields a quantum mechanical solution for a particle with rest mo if one assumes p=Ev. In such a case one may use the special relativistic result EE = pp + momo and establish the Klein-Gordon equation. A third solution pertains to objects with zero rest mass. As argued in Part I, these do not follow p=E(v)v, but rather the classical wave result: v=E/p. In this note we examine massless particles, namely waves on a string, photons and sound, in more detail. For the zero mass case, dA=0 so there is motion in such a way as to keep A constant. If one considers periodic motion and uses ((1a)) and ((1b)), a solution which is real and periodic is: d/dt d/dt cos(A) = vv d/dx d/dx cos(A) ((2)) A second order partial differential equation is needed as one insists the solution be real. This differs from the quantum mechanical solution of exp(-iEt+ipx) which is complex for a reason. The modulus must be linked to a probability of 1 for a free particle. The zero mass solution is one of a smeared-out physical wave. We note that ((1a)) and ((1b)) deal strictly with E energy and p momentum, but cos(A)=cos(-Et+px) is associated with a period proportional to 1/E and a wavelength proportional to 1/p. This raises two questions. First, what physical entity is periodic? Secondly, how does the energy appear in the problem as energy and not just 2*3.14 frequency of the physical entity? We try to consider this issue for a wave on a string, photon and sound wave.
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.
Date on paper should be 2022 not 2021. In a previous note, we argued that for a free particle there exists a function A(x,t) such that d/dx (partial) A(x,t) = p ((1a)) and d/dt (partial) A(x,t) = -E ((1b)). In particular, we used p=E(v) v for the relativistic case and p=mov. We showed that A(x,t) is the classical action for a free particle Integral dt L = T L with v=x/t before the derivatives are taken. After, x/t is set to v. As a result, there is a nonrelativistic A(x,t)= T .5mvv and a relativistic one A= -mo sqrt(1-vv) (c=1). We argued that ((1a)) and ((1b)) are in the form of flow equations. Energy E flows through space out of a dx region (i.e there is an energy flux Ev) so if x is held constant, the change in time is -E. We also noted that one may obtain both the Schrodinger and Klein-Gordon equations from ((1a)) and ((1b)) (see reference in (1)). As a result, A(x,t) is linked to both the nonrelativistic and relativistic free particle actions, yields free particle quantum mechanical equations and may also be used to obtain the form of special relativity (as discussed in the reference in (1)). In this note, we wish to consider spin which is not present in ((1a)) and ((1b)). For both relativistic and nonrelativistic classical dynamics which are linked to A(x,t) one deals with numbers (scalars) and so no notion of spin arises. In obtaining both the relativistic Klein-Gordon equation and nonrelativistic Schrodinger equation from ((1a)) and ((1b)), one creates an eigenvalue equation i.e. id/dt exp(i Action) = E exp(iAction) ((2a)) and -id/dx exp(i Action) = p exp(i Action) ((2b)) which only hold for the free particle. One may then use E and p in expressions EE = pp + momo (where p=Ev= dAction/dx partial) and E = pp/2m + V(x) where p=mov=dAction/dx (partial). For the free particle, one has ((2a)) and ((2b)) without establishing the Klein-Gordon equation. Given that p=Ev is a vector, one may try to write ((2b)) as a vector, but given that one has operators acting on exp(i Action) one does not use a basis vector ei (ei dot ei=1), but rather a “basis” operator or a spin matrix. Thus, we argue that spin emerges in this way without having to linearize the Klein-Gordon equation. Interestingly, this approach only holds for fermions. For the photon, which is a boson, a Dirac-like equation may be obtained directly from a d/dt (partial) EL EL + BB + b grad dot (El x B) = 0 as shown in (2) (with a,b being constants). This again follows from a flow scheme.
It is known that classical waves such as waves on a string, sound and light (from Maxwell’s em equations) take the argument -Et+px where E is associated with a frequency and p with 1/wavelength. We argue that these classical nonrelativistic treatments already bring in features of special relativity (as does Schrodinger equation quantum mechanics for a free particle) as -Et+px is a Lorentz invariant. In fact we argue that Lagrangian formalism: E=pv-L and p=dL/dv is compatible with special relativity. In a previous note (1) we argued that d/dx partial A(x,t) = p and d/dt partial A(x,t) = -E for a free particle with A=tL(v). We also noted that A= -Et+px is a solution, but that one may also write E(v)= E(x/t) and p(x/t) and take the derivatives d/dx partial A and d/dt partial A and obtain the same results. In this note we show how this follows from regular Lagrange theory and note that one already associates d/dx partial with p and d/dt partial with -E i.e. the quantum theory for a free particle is present.
The classical action (relativistic or nonrelativistic) 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 = -Et+px is a solution. This expression also appears in classical wave forms and in the electromagnetic description of a photon (from Maxwell’s laws). -Et+px is a Lorentz invariant and so is directly linked to special relativity and different frames moving with constant velocity. In (1) we argued that x and t should be treated as independent in A. This suggests that p is a scaling in space and E in time. Thus there should be physical lengths proportional to 1/p and physical time intervals proportional to 1/E. Special relativity considers different frames (moving with constant velocity) and 4-vectors so it seems to be quite different from a scenario with t and x separated and scaling of x by p. We argue that although -Et+px is a Lorentz invariant and as such may be used to find E(v) and p(v), quantum mechanics is usually performed in a special frame, namey one in which V(x) or V(x,v) the potential is at rest. (For electromagnetism one treats (A, phi) as a 4-vector, but this is not the norm.) As a result, energy En found in a rest frame of the potential also represents “rest energy” so En is binding energy which is added to rest mass energy. In other words motion in the rest frame of a potential creates rest energy = rest mass. We argue that V(x) may be written as a sum over k Vk exp(ikx) and so no time related terms appear, only momentum linked ones. Thus momentum is the key feature for the interaction, even though velocity and time are still in the picture (just sometimes not directly in the interaction scheme). For example, a two slit interference or single slit diffraction does not depend on time or speed although these are certainly in the problem. For a bound state v and t are also in the problem as one calculates average kinetic energy using pp/2m = .5 p v which is rate dependent, but there is no acceleration which is a time-dependent phenomenon. Rather one deals with an ensemble of exp(ipx)’s because these interact with the potential in a wavelike manner to create the effect of acceleration. exp(ipx) a momentum wave linked to the scaling of x by p in px is not only involved in an interaction with V(x), but represents extra information from the classical mechanical picture. exp(ipx) for a known rest mass mo means one knows v=x/t=dx/dt, yet there is an extra piece of information namely the phase px which is involved in even “free” interactions such as two idendical particle with different phases arriving at the same x at the same t or the average kinetic energy in a bound state. Velocity v is converted into a momentum expression through p/mo in the norelativistic case and so exp(ipx) governs the whole scenario. Acceleration then becomes a mathematical abstraction of the motion of vrms(x) for any quantum bound energy level with the real physics associated with exp(ipx) being ignored.