Classical mechanics, which is a deterministic theory, was developed largely with the work of Newton. Later, the Lagrangian approach of obtaining stationary paths of an action was introduced to obtain the Newtonian results. Thus a deterministic theory was considered in the interpretation of varying paths in the action with the stationary path being the classical mechanical result. In (1) we have argued that both relativistic and nonrelativistic quantum mechanics follow from varying x and t independently in v= x/t = constant in the classical action for a free particle with constant momentum. In this case, it seems one considers a fluctuating distance or a stochastic approach, yet in this note we argue that for dAction/dx =p for the quantum case is very similar to dL/dv = p for the classical. It is the interpretation which seems to differ. We argue that an energy flow through space i.e. a p in quantum mechanics seems to follow from a certain kind of spatial probability fluctuation i.e. a periodic one. On average the free particle case and also the bound state case yield classical results so the Lagrangian approach of classical mechanics is linked to quantum rms values.
Classical mechanics, which is a deterministic theory, was developed largely with the work of Newton. Later, the Lagrangian approach of obtaining stationary paths of an action was introduced to obtain the Newtonian results. Thus a deterministic theory was considered in the interpretation of varying paths in the action with the stationary path being the classical mechanical result. In (1) we have argued that both relativistic and nonrelativistic quantum mechanics follow from varying x and t independently in v= x/t = constant in the classical action for a free particle with constant momentum. In this case, it seems one considers a fluctuating distance or a stochastic approach, yet in this note we argue that for dAction/dx =p for the quantum case is very similar to dL/dv = p for the classical. It is the interpretation which seems to differ. We argue that an energy flow through space i.e. a p in quantum mechanics seems to follow from a certain kind of spatial probability fluctuation i.e. a periodic one. On average the free particle case and also the bound state case yield classical results so the Lagrangian approach of classical mechanics is linked to quantum rms values.
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.
We have argued in previous notes that free particle quantum mechanics arises from special relativity and is dependent on both the deterministic x=vt and fluctuation/probabilistic delta x= hbar/p and delta t = hbar/E. In other words, both determinism and probability are inherent to special relativity and it is also special relativity which defines energy and momentum. At first, it may seem that these are rather strong suggestions. We argue, however, that perhaps these ideas are already present in classical Lagrangian/Stationary Action theory. This theory was developed to describe Newtonian mechanics, but we argue that because it uses the notions of E (energy) and p (momentum), it must be linked to special relativity which yields the full expressions for these functions. The interesting feature of stationary Lagrangian theory is that a notion of fluctuations in path (x,v,t) are used to ultimately obtain the deterministic path x=vt for a free particle as the stationary one. The notion of a stationary, deterministic path x=vt is present, but so is the notion of fluctuations about this path. The problem is that the stationary action process is a mathematically one and does not attribute and physical features to the fluctuations about the stationary path, whereas we argue that these fluctuations are linked with probabilistic impulse hits or E interactions in time and are directly associated with the quantum wavefunction (complex probability) exp(-iEt+ipx) which physically manifests itself (as in 2-slit experiments etc). In order to connect stationary classical action theory to special relativity, we use H = pv - L -> -Hdt + pdx = L dt. If one considers fluctuations of this equation, the RHS set to 0 leads to the stationary deterministic x=vt, while the LHS leads to delta t = hbar/E and delta x = hbar/p. In other words, there is a delta x and delta t not linked to v = delta x / delta t. We suggest that this approach shows both probabilistic and deterministic features present side by side and is directly linked to special relativity because -Hdt + pdx is of the form of the Lorentz invariant -Et+px.
In (1), the notion of a stochastic classical action is introduced and a probability is linked to exp( constant * action). The objective of (1) is not to derive quantum mechanics, but to derive stochastic dynamics based on maximum entropy in action space. We have argued in a number of previous notes (2) that one may use the classical action to create a quantum free particle probability. This classical action, however, is not chosen a priori, but rather arises due to other considerations. We suggest that stochasticity is present in Newtonian mechanics at some time scale because dt is finite in dp/dt= Force (Newton’s second law) and so postulate that force delivery at some x,t is probabilistic within some dt and dx. A priori, dt and dx are not known, but if there is stochasticity, there should be a free particle probability, i.e. a probability(x,t) where x,t represent an x, t interaction point. Furthermore, the notion of dx and dt should arise naturally. We note that the form exp(i function(x,t,p,E) may be introduced because free particles have no distributed variable (like energy in the Maxwell-Boltzmann case). exp(i function(x,t)) immediately introduces periodicity, but we have argued that stochasticity can only exist within tiny, fixed dx, dt linked to dp/dt=F. In particular, one classical Newtonian scales this stochasticity is not seen. The periodicity should be directly in x and t space, suggesting exp( i A1 t + i A2 x). This expression, however, should be Lorentz invariant, and A1 and A2 should be constants, at least for a fixed mo and v. The reason that the one must have periodicity is that the dx and dt ranges of stochasticity in dp/dt=Fr must appear naturally. At this point, one is led to exp(-iEt+ipx) with -Et+px being a Lorentz invariant which satisfies the above criteria. This Lorentz invariant happens to be the classical action in both the relativistic and nonrelativistic cases, hence giving rise to action as being a stochastic variable (of (1)) because it is a function of the two scholastic variables x and t. Alternatively, one may choose the exp(iA1x+iA2t) due to its conservation properties. One may then argue that A1 and A2 could also be conserved for x,t held constant, i.e. A1 and A2 could be linked to Newtonian energy and momentum in elastic collisions. This allows one to solve for the special relativistic g(v) =1/sqrt(1-vv/cc). Given the idea of a conserved quantity form for a probability, one may argue that exp(i Action) satisfies a maximization of Shannon’s entropy subject to a conserved constraint (which is again a link with (1).) The question then becomes: Why should the Lorentz invariant A= -Et+px be the classical action.One may note that x,t usually refer to trajectory values and so for a free particle, one has x=vt. This means that one may factor out t, i.e. A= t( -E+pv), but this is automatically the form of the Lagrangian with E being the Hamiltonian. This holds relativistically and non-relativistically with the form: dL/dv partial = p. The remaining question is: Why should the classical action be Lorentz invariant? We consider E(v)-p(v) v = -L such that dE/dv - v dp/dv -p = -dL/dv partial. This means that dE/dv - v dpd/v = 0 ((1)). A Lorentz transformation, however, changes mo in a rest frame into p=mov/sqrt(1-vv/cc) and E=mocc/sqrt(1-vv/cc). One may see that this solution may be obtained from ((1)) showing a direct link between the classical action approach and special relativity. The connection may be carried further as Lt = -Et+px is a Lorentz invariant, but also the classical action (in both the relativistic and nonrelativistic cases). We argue that the use of the action in (1) as a stochastic variable is directly related to special relativity. In summary, from finite dt in dp/dt=F, t and x are stochastic variables within some naturally appearing dx and dt. One may write a linear combination of x and t and to create a stochastic Lorent invariant variable which should appear in exp(i Lorentz invariant) and create the dx and dt units. It may then be shown that this Lorentz invariant in E,p,x,t should be equivalent to the classical action.
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.
In Part 1, we argued that P(x)dx=dx/L (where L is an arbitrary length) applies to a particle at rest. If one views such a particle from a frame moving at constant -v, it is moving. We argued that in such a case, the relevant probability is not simply linked to the position x, but also to the momentum p at x because this delivers an impulse hit. In particular, probability is presumably to be used in a physical problem with interactions and probability and a dynamical particle requires a dynamical probability describing both x,t and E,p. This led to exp(-iEt+px) which actually predicts intervals in space hbar/p and time hbar/E. In other words, a probabilistic view point leads to these results. Here, we ask the question: What if one simply wishes to use deterministic physics to describe a moving particle? After all, Newtonian mechanics is deterministic and one does not really need to focus on P(x)=1/L or its modification for a moving particle. In such a case, a particle moving with constant v (starting at x=0, t=0) is described by x/t=v both in Newtonian mechanics and special relativity. There is no uncertainty in x and t here which begs the question: Why does it appear in the probabilistic formalism of Part 1? In particular, exp(-iEt+ipx) derived in Part 1 implies physical regions: dx = hbar/p and dt=hbar/E and these seem to be absent in x/t=v and this is a problem. We suggest that a probabilistic approach is buried in the Lagrangian formalism which leads to the result d/dt v = 0, i.e describes the particle’s motion in space. This motion is actually x/t=v, but this equation only presents a subset of the description of a particle that is moving with constant speed, even in a deterministic Lagrangian/Action approach. We have already pointed this out in (1). We briefly explain it again here, but the real question is why does one need to consider the Lagrangian in order to describe x/t=v? In other words, the probabilistic approach associated with v=x/t only emerges in the Lagrangian formalism using a relativistic action Lt = -Et+px, with x/t=v. Ignoring the action and Lagrangian leads to an absence of hbar/p and hbar/E and one is only concerned with x/t=v. We note that the Lagrangian is primarily linked to the result: p = dL/dv partial and so argue that one is not simply interested in motion (x/t=v), but also in interaction because p is associated with an impulse hit. Thus, the Lagrangian approach is more than simply a mechanism which describes x,t motion, it is associated with p and E (through Hamiltonian = E = pv-L.) Using the Lagrangian approach suggests that it does not suffice to consider x and t by themselves when p and E are present. One must consider all four variables x,t,E,p which is the same point made in Part 1. The physics of the problem dictates that it is not enough to simply think in terms of x,t,v. The Lagrangian approach, which is constructed to ultimately yield x/t=v, when written in terms of E, p, i.e. Lt = -Et+px demonstrates uncertainty in x, hbar/p and t, hbar/E as shown in (1). This uncertainty must then be written in terms of a probability which is Lorentz invariant and leads to exp(-iEt+ipx). The point is that one would not even consider a probability if one did not consider E,p and x,t together as a complete treatment of a moving particle. In other words, x/t=v is an incomplete description of the state of a particle moving with constant speed, even in a deterministic framework.. At first this might seem surprising, but it is well known that energy and p are linked to interactions. In special relativity, one does not consider x,t,v alone and then compute p and E from these, but considers four vectors and Lorentz invariant equations. It is possible to create a Lorentz invariant equation involving all four state variables x,t,E,p and it turns out that this is the relativistic Lagrangian which describes motion, so this approach is more general than simply stating x/t=v. Thus, delta x = hbar/p and delta t= hbar/E appear in both the probabilistic approach of Part 1 and the deterministic one of the Lagrangian used here.
The classical action: Integral (0,T) dt1 L(v(t1), x(t1),t1) may be varied to find a stationary solution which yields Newton’s second law, a standard procedure in classical mechanics. Is it possible to obtain quantum mechanical motion from this same classical action? We argue that one may write the action for a relativistic/nonrelativistic particle moving at constant speed in terms of X and T i.e. v=velocity=constant=X/T. Varying with respect to X and T yields: d/dT Action = -E and d/dX Action = p. Thus, changing X by delta X yields a change in the action of p delta X which holds for all X because of the constant velocity. If one envisions a periodic function such as exp(i Action), this behaves as exp(ipx) in terms of -id/dX. Thus, there is an intrinsic wavelength related to 1/p. This follows directly from small changes of the Action. Alternatively, one may create a differential equation such as the Klein-Gordon or Schrodinger equation from classical conservation of energy-momentum using id/dT exp(iAction) = E exp(i Action) and -id/dX exp(iAction) = p exp(i Action). We note that exp(ipx) which describes the fluctuational behaviour of the classical Action may have positive and negative values showing that fluctuations may be both positive and negative These negative and positive fluctuations are, however, periodic so there is some systematic behaviour occurring, it seems.. We argue that exp(ipx) is statistical as its modulus is 1, indicating that a free particle has equal probability to be at any x point. For a system with a potential V(x), one may create an ensemble describing fluctuations of all possible p values i.e. W(x)=wavefunciton= Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx). The fluctuations are regular positive and negative, but there is different wavelength behaviour for each p i.e. 1/p so there is interference to yield an average fluctuation pattern i.e. the wavefunction.