We take as our starting point the free particle classical action which may be written as A= -Et+px if t and x are treated as independent variables. It is possible to find two relationships linking v (velocity) to x and t from dA=0. The first is the classical wave result vp = E while the second is p=Ev where E=mo/sqrt(1-vv) (c=1). Furthermore one may write dA/dx partial = p ((1a)) and dA/dt partial = -E. ((1b)) This may be generalized to two eigenvalue differential equations, but this immediately begs the question: Why do this? We argue that Lorentz invariant form -Et+px represents scaling of both t and x. For example, p scales x and we argue there should be physical relevance to this. This physical relevance results in the wavelength proportional to 1/p. In other words, -Et+px represents more than velocity. The treatment of the scaling for a quantum wave and classical wave differ, we argue, in that the former keeps E,t and p,x separate while a classical wave does not. In other words pv=E applies to a classical wave which is described by cos(-Et+px). In other words, one takes ((1a)) and ((1b)) which separate E,t and p,x into two independent equations and takes account of scaling by combining the two (to include both x and t) i.e. creating the classical wave equation: 1/vv d/dt d/dt partial W(x,t) = d/dx d/dx partial W(x,t). We argue that quantum mechanics on the other hand keeps ((1a)) and ((1b)) separate. The velocity (relativistic) p=Ev is not a wave velocity. A solution to ((1a)) is exp(ipx) and to ((1b)) exp(-iEt). These are usually combined for a free particle to give exp(-iEt+ipx) and a wave is described with a phase velocity pv(phase)=E. We prefer to keep exp(-iEt) and exp(ipx) separate . For example, for two slit interference one does not make use of phase velocity or exp(-iEt). For a bound state one uses p=Ev, but a single free particle is represented by exp(ipx) in W(x)=wavefunction = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). exp(-iEn t) appears after one has found En, using the exp(ipx)’s in the sense that one does not include an exp(- i pp/2m t) for each exp(ipx). We argue that by separating E,t and p,x, the latter leads to a scheme for which there is “no time”. It is true that the particle moves at a speed x/t, but p=m1v1=m2v2 etc so p does not uniquely define velocity, rather it defines an impulse hit 2p = Integral F dt . Thus the scaling px which leads to an x, p only wave exp(ipx) is linked to an interaction. If the particle is moving freely and not interacting, then one has classical determinism i.e. v=constant = x/t. As soon as an interaction occurs, one changes from variables x,t which are linked to x, P conditional (x/p) and there is uncertainty in the position of x within a wavelength. The phase in exp(ipx) is only dependent on x not on the time the particle reaches x. exp(ipx) thus represents a probability and one must consider a sum of different possible outcomes (as in a two slit experiment) in order to describe an interaction. This is very different from the local interaction of classical mechanics. Nevertheless for a bound state one makes use of the two formalisms i.e. KE(x)= Sum over p pp/2m a(p)exp(ipx) / W(x) = KEclassical(x). We try to discuss some of these ideas in this note.
We take as our starting point the free particle classical action which may be written as A= -Et+px if t and x are treated as independent variables. It is possible to find two relationships linking v (velocity) to x and t from dA=0. The first is the classical wave result vp = E while the second is p=Ev where E=mo/sqrt(1-vv) (c=1). Furthermore one may write dA/dx partial = p ((1a)) and dA/dt partial = -E. ((1b)) This may be generalized to two eigenvalue differential equations, but this immediately begs the question: Why do this? We argue that Lorentz invariant form -Et+px represents scaling of both t and x. For example, p scales x and we argue there should be physical relevance to this. This physical relevance results in the wavelength proportional to 1/p. In other words, -Et+px represents more than velocity. The treatment of the scaling for a quantum wave and classical wave differ, we argue, in that the former keeps E,t and p,x separate while a classical wave does not. In other words pv=E applies to a classical wave which is described by cos(-Et+px). In other words, one takes ((1a)) and ((1b)) which separate E,t and p,x into two independent equations and takes account of scaling by combining the two (to include both x and t) i.e. creating the classical wave equation: 1/vv d/dt d/dt partial W(x,t) = d/dx d/dx partial W(x,t). We argue that quantum mechanics on the other hand keeps ((1a)) and ((1b)) separate. The velocity (relativistic) p=Ev is not a wave velocity. A solution to ((1a)) is exp(ipx) and to ((1b)) exp(-iEt). These are usually combined for a free particle to give exp(-iEt+ipx) and a wave is described with a phase velocity pv(phase)=E. We prefer to keep exp(-iEt) and exp(ipx) separate . For example, for two slit interference one does not make use of phase velocity or exp(-iEt). For a bound state one uses p=Ev, but a single free particle is represented by exp(ipx) in W(x)=wavefunction = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). exp(-iEn t) appears after one has found En, using the exp(ipx)’s in the sense that one does not include an exp(- i pp/2m t) for each exp(ipx). We argue that by separating E,t and p,x, the latter leads to a scheme for which there is “no time”. It is true that the particle moves at a speed x/t, but p=m1v1=m2v2 etc so p does not uniquely define velocity, rather it defines an impulse hit 2p = Integral F dt . Thus the scaling px which leads to an x, p only wave exp(ipx) is linked to an interaction. If the particle is moving freely and not interacting, then one has classical determinism i.e. v=constant = x/t. As soon as an interaction occurs, one changes from variables x,t which are linked to x, P conditional (x/p) and there is uncertainty in the position of x within a wavelength. The phase in exp(ipx) is only dependent on x not on the time the particle reaches x. exp(ipx) thus represents a probability and one must consider a sum of different possible outcomes (as in a two slit experiment) in order to describe an interaction. This is very different from the local interaction of classical mechanics. Nevertheless for a bound state one makes use of the two formalisms i.e. KE(x)= Sum over p pp/2m a(p)exp(ipx) / W(x) = KEclassical(x). We try to discuss some of these ideas in this note.
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.
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.
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 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 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) 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).