-Et + px is an example of a Lorentz invariant. The two 4-vectors (p,E) and (x,t) transform according to a Lorentz transformation which is linked to viewing a system from different frames moving at constant velocities v. There is, however, a second solution namely t=C/E and p=C/x (C=constant) which also keeps the inner product constant. This is not linked to frame transformations because for a given p or E one has a specific x or t value which has to be thought of in a different manner. In particular, it may represent an interval (“pocket”) in space or time i.e. x as 1/p is a wavelength. This may also be connected with a free particle Action. If x as 1/p represents an interval in space, it seems there should be a probability distribution associated with such an interval. If this is the case, the idea of Shannon’s entropy should hold within that region. Thus increasing energy (and p) leads to smaller wavelength regions i.e. higher resolution. Using ideas from a bound infinite well we argue that entropy for a crest decreases as the resolution increases. Thus high energy of a constant velocity particle is linked to the idea of low entropy if one uses invariance in special relativity and utilizes a second solution which keeps -Et+px constant. This approach is equivalent to exp(-iEt+ipx) the wavefunction of free particle. Thus the idea of entropy and its relationship to energy may be linked with both special relativity and the quantum mechanics of a free particle, something that does not seem to be evident from classical mechanics.
-Et + px is an example of a Lorentz invariant. The two 4-vectors (p,E) and (x,t) transform according to a Lorentz transformation which is linked to viewing a system from different frames moving at constant velocities v. There is, however, a second solution namely t=C/E and p=C/x (C=constant) which also keeps the inner product constant. This is not linked to frame transformations because for a given p or E one has a specific x or t value which has to be thought of in a different manner. In particular, it may represent an interval (“pocket”) in space or time i.e. x as 1/p is a wavelength. This may also be connected with a free particle Action. If x as 1/p represents an interval in space, it seems there should be a probability distribution associated with such an interval. If this is the case, the idea of Shannon’s entropy should hold within that region. Thus increasing energy (and p) leads to smaller wavelength regions i.e. higher resolution. Using ideas from a bound infinite well we argue that entropy for a crest decreases as the resolution increases. Thus high energy of a constant velocity particle is linked to the idea of low entropy if one uses invariance in special relativity and utilizes a second solution which keeps -Et+px constant. This approach is equivalent to exp(-iEt+ipx) the wavefunction of free particle. Thus the idea of entropy and its relationship to energy may be linked with both special relativity and the quantum mechanics of a free particle, something that does not seem to be evident from classical mechanics.
In special relativity, energy and momentum are part of a 4-vector, but are also properties of a particle. X and t also form a 4-vector, but are not properties of a particle, but rather are measured relative to an external ruler or clock. Shifting the origin of the ruler/clock changes their value, but does not change the value of velocity and hence momentum.In (1), we called x and t running variables. Special relativity deals with observations based on measurers in different frames moving at constant velocities. The ruler or clocks used by these people, however, may be shifted so there is no absolute property of time or x in this case either. Shifting a ruler or clock does not change the value of velocity, it is a property of the particle (assuming there are equally space gradations and clock intervals). In order to make x and t properties of a particle, we argue (as in (1)) that one may use A= -Et+px, a Lorentz invariant. For -EE+pp, (c=1), another Lorentz invariant, there is a link between all frames with rest mass squared (c=1). Within a specific frame (E,p exact numbers), -Et+px creates a link between special degenerate (in terms of A) x and t points, i.e. x+ n constant/p and t + n constant/E. These keep A constant due to the minus sign. Thus E and p create an internal clock and ruler for a particle as we have argued in (1). This means that n constant/p are special “x” points (and the same with n*constant /E and time) and suggests a probability distribution in x with a period of constant/p. Thus E and p interacting with x,t allow the latter to be properties of a particle, but at the cost of introducing probability. Given the notion of probability, this suggests that entropy should come into play. One may ask: Is entropy maximized subject to a constraint? If so, what constraint should one use? We argue for a constraint of ipx associated with the period constant /p, the “i” being associated with periodicity. In such a case, the Lorentz invariant -Et+px leads to exp(ipx) as a dynamic probability without the use of an eigenvalue equation.
The Lorentz transformation of special relativity is based on velocity. Although this velocity may be differentiated by time, the notion of force is not needed to obtain the Lorentz matrix for a particle with rest mass. In particular, in special relativity one considers frames moving at constant velocities. In the case of a photon, the Lorentz transformation preserves the form of Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations. As a result, there does not seem to be a focus on force, rather the emphasis is on the two 4-vectors (p,E) and (x,t) for a particle with rest mass and photon. Nevertheless, a particle with momentum (and the capability to interact) imparts an impulse. In fact, one may think of energy changing due to an impulse (which includes force). Thus from an information point of view, one may ask: Does this force which creates a change in energy/momentum “disappear” as the particle/photon moves at constant speed only to “reappear” when it strikes a surface? If not, where is the information of this force stored? We argue it is associated with a change in energy and momentum of a free particle which in turn is linked to an internal ruler/clock i.e. the quantum frequency and wavelength from exp(-iEt+ipx) which preserves the force because a spatial probability distribution is created (for the wavelength). This force is linked with a direction i.e. the direction of p through the two dimensionality of exp(ipx). Thus, we argue that the force does not disappear, rather it is manifest in the internal clock and ruler which define spacetime for the free quantum particle, but in a probabilistic manner with the distribution being deterministic to ensure it maps to spatial invariance. One might at first find it surprising that force, usually associated with acceleration (i.e. deterministic motion) is now associated with probability cos(px) in space (, but deterministic probability, not random), but E,p and x,t are intertwined through the Lorentz invariant -Et+px for both a particle with rest mass and photon, so if E and p change, it is not necessarily surprising that t,x also change. Thus an impulse may change p and E, but then remains manifest in the system through the internal clock and ruler gradations in such a way that speed is still constant on average.
In a previous note (1) we considered a free particle entropy based on the real part of the wavefunction exp(ipx) i.e. |cos(px)|. |cos(px|) may be normalized over a certain length, just as exp(ipx) is. The idea is that there exists an uncertainty in space within a wavelength which should be reflected in an entropy expression. As p becomes very large, cos(px) becomes very narrow and has many peaks in L. Thus probability →0 so p ln(p)--> 0 using l’Hopital’s rule. This coincides with a free classical particle having zero entropy. In this note, we revisit arguments presented previously, suggesting that A= -Et+px, a Lorentz invariant and also the free particle classical relativistic and nonrelativistic action for v=x/t We suggested in the past that A is responsible for both the wavelength hbar/p and the time period hbar/E. Here we suggest uncertainty within a time period should be considered together with uncertainty within a wavelength. For instance, recent experiments (2) have shown that one may have quantum interference in time as well as space. Thus there is uncertainty for a free particle in both space and time. We add the entropies for these two. Next, we consider the case of a bound system. Such a system creates a crest-trough pattern (with different heights and widths) for its spatial wavefunction, but E, average energy is constant and there is the free particle type exp(-iEnt). We suggest that the system is characterized by uncertainty in space and time with En being a known constant at each x. This suggests that various free particle p (momentum) values combine to create the wavefunction such that -1/2m d/dx d/dx W/W is average kinetic energy which in turn adds to V(x) to create a constant En. We are thus concerned with uncertainty in time and space and not in momentum. In the limit of high energy values, a crest fits within a tiny dx and prms is essentially the classical p value which is considered certain, even though in quantum mechanics the range of a(p) weights hold for all n (W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx)). Thus we treat a high n limit as being completely certain and not having entropy. This differs from the approach of using C/v(x), where v(x) is velocity given by .5mv(x)v(x)+V(x)=En, as a probability and calculating Shannon’s entropy using this.
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.
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 notion of entropy originates historically in classical physics and is intertwined with thermodynamics. Shannon’s entropy: - Sum over i P(i) ln(P(i)), where P(i) is the probability for i, however, seems to apply to any probability, but in quantum mechanics appears to be particularly linked to spatial and momentum entropy (1) i.e. - Integral dx W*(x)W(x) ln[ W*(x)W(x)] and - Sum over p a*(p)a(p) ln[ a*(p)a(p) ] where W(x)= wavefunction = Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx). In this note we speculate that one may create an entropy from the real part of exp(ipx) i.e. cos(px) as this term is associated with probability within a wavelength even though the “center of mass” of the particle may be moving uniformly at v=x/t=constant and W*(x)W(x)=1 or a constant. The latter implies an entropy independent of p but there is uncertainty in a free particle due to its wavelength which is experimentally manifested. We argue there is no reason to limit entropy to x or p considerations. For a bound state, a pattern of crests and troughs of different lengths and heights may be produced and so again there is a pattern of unnormalized probability distributions with different weights. The absolute value may be taken so negative wavefunction values are not an issue. For both the free particle and the bound state two features emerge. First the shape of the distributions is linked to the curvature which in turn is associated with the kinetic energy. Thus the probability distributions which describe the quantum system are governed by kinetic energy. Secondly, a pattern of distributions, both negative and positive, ensures that exp(ipx) is perpendicular to other exp(ip1 x) functions and Wn(x) is perpendicular to other Wn1(x)’s. In other words energy identifies the statistical state which exists throughout space and one cannot confuse the identity of one state with another. Thus they are orthogonal throughout space and probability distributions (linked to entropy) seem to enforce this. The inner product of W*(x) and W(x) is like an inner product of a product probability of a state and its time reversed state. We suggest one should be able to define a Shannon’s entropy expression for both |cos(px)|/C1 from exp(ipx) over a half wavelength where C1 is a normalization factor and |W(x)|/C2 roughly over the length over which it has humps i.e. roughly the classical turning points for an oscillator for example. This entropy is not additive and does not map to classical entropy in the large n (energy level) limit. Furthermore it may not be linked to thermodynamics because it is not linked to x or p. Nevertheless, it might be used to describe uncertainty within the quantity system and equilibrium/stable scenarios which are observed in nature. For example, different Wn(x) states are statistically stable states, but one may knock out the particle and it will be in an exp(ipx) state which is also stable. Furthermore, a photon may excite Wn1(x) to Wn2(x), thus this new entropy seems to be linked to stable states allowed in nature. The “price to pay”, however, seems to be uncertainty in wavelength regions for a free particle and the crest/trough regions for a bound state. We also consider some properties of a similar entropy for bound states.