Newton’s second law dp/dt = F(x)=-dV/dx may be written in terms of x alone i.e. dp/dx v(x) = -dV/dx or 1/(2m) d/dx pp = -dV/dx leading to the idea of kinetic energy pp/2m and potential energy V(x). In (1) we argued that there is velocity, rest mass mo, and momentum in quantum mechanics. A free particle, however, does not undergo smooth acceleration as in classical mechanics, and we argued there exists a momentum space wave exp(ipx) accompanying the moving particle. In such a scenario, force is considered to be probabilistic momentum hits of the form Vk exp(ikx) leading to a free particle momentum distribution W(x)= Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx). Both of these expressions involve interference due to momentum waves which do not track a particle in time. A mass flux mov or energy flux p=Ev relativistically seems to be the main consideration. Nevertheless, summing Vkexp(ikx) over k to obtain V(x) yields a function varying in x alone. This is a kind of average based on interference and Sum k Vk exp(ikx) is an average linked to momentum hits. We speculate that average momentum hits i.e. -d/dx V(x) are linked to momentum flux changes. In other words, even though an impulse is based on p and does not distinguish v i.e. p=m1v1=m2v2, momentum flux is velocity dependent and appears for an average momentum hit i.e. -dV/dx. In such a case (pave+dpave)(vave + dv ave) = 2 pave dv(ave) . This expression, however, contains both forward and backward motion which is part of quantum mechanics. Moving to an average picture seems to introduce time and direction i.e one uses pave d v(ave). This is already a change from a quantum to a classical scenario albeit for averages (which have not been specifically defined). Thus we consider pave dv(ave). If this is the case, then: d/dx pave 1/m space = -dV/dx or 1/(2m) pave pave = -d/dx V(x). Instead of treating pave pave as two separate averages one considers pave=prms or pavepave=<pp>. Thus the quantum bound picture (at any energy level) becomes a classical type of scenario which includes time and velocity. Note that for a two slit interference pattern, one does not need velocity and time because the interaction with the potentials from both slits is based on exp(ipx). One does not even need the form of the potential. Interference is the same for p=m1v1=m2v2 (even though the process takes place during different time intervals, the pattern is not affected). In other words, we argue that Newton’s second law might follow from a picture of momentum hits in which a flux i.e. p=mov is treated as a quantity which in an average scenario leads to a second flux i.e. an average momentum flux which reintroduces direction, time and velocity.. This is somewhat like a hydrodynamics scenario.
Newton’s second law dp/dt = F(x)=-dV/dx may be written in terms of x alone i.e. dp/dx v(x) = -dV/dx or 1/(2m) d/dx pp = -dV/dx leading to the idea of kinetic energy pp/2m and potential energy V(x). In (1) we argued that there is velocity, rest mass mo, and momentum in quantum mechanics. A free particle, however, does not undergo smooth acceleration as in classical mechanics, and we argued there exists a momentum space wave exp(ipx) accompanying the moving particle. In such a scenario, force is considered to be probabilistic momentum hits of the form Vk exp(ikx) leading to a free particle momentum distribution W(x)= Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx). Both of these expressions involve interference due to momentum waves which do not track a particle in time. A mass flux mov or energy flux p=Ev relativistically seems to be the main consideration. Nevertheless, summing Vkexp(ikx) over k to obtain V(x) yields a function varying in x alone. This is a kind of average based on interference and Sum k Vk exp(ikx) is an average linked to momentum hits. We speculate that average momentum hits i.e. -d/dx V(x) are linked to momentum flux changes. In other words, even though an impulse is based on p and does not distinguish v i.e. p=m1v1=m2v2, momentum flux is velocity dependent and appears for an average momentum hit i.e. -dV/dx. In such a case (pave+dpave)(vave + dv ave) = 2 pave dv(ave) . This expression, however, contains both forward and backward motion which is part of quantum mechanics. Moving to an average picture seems to introduce time and direction i.e one uses pave d v(ave). This is already a change from a quantum to a classical scenario albeit for averages (which have not been specifically defined). Thus we consider pave dv(ave). If this is the case, then: d/dx pave 1/m space = -dV/dx or 1/(2m) pave pave = -d/dx V(x). Instead of treating pave pave as two separate averages one considers pave=prms or pavepave=<pp>. Thus the quantum bound picture (at any energy level) becomes a classical type of scenario which includes time and velocity. Note that for a two slit interference pattern, one does not need velocity and time because the interaction with the potentials from both slits is based on exp(ipx). One does not even need the form of the potential. Interference is the same for p=m1v1=m2v2 (even though the process takes place during different time intervals, the pattern is not affected). In other words, we argue that Newton’s second law might follow from a picture of momentum hits in which a flux i.e. p=mov is treated as a quantity which in an average scenario leads to a second flux i.e. an average momentum flux which reintroduces direction, time and velocity.. This is somewhat like a hydrodynamics scenario.
In Part 1, we suggested that exp(ipx) represents a spatial probability for the rendering of momentum hits. A single particle has a center-of-mass which undergoes x=vt, but momentum hits are not rendered from this point, but are rather delivered in x according to the complex probability exp(ipx) which is linked with the resolution delta x = hbar/p. This accounts for the fact that a particle can probabilistically interact with each slit of a 2-slit apparatus if they are about hbar/apart. If one is only interested in energy, pp/2m, the classical result holds for both exp(-ipx) and exp(ipx). In a classical bound state, one considers only energy p(x)p(x)/2m + V(x)=E because each p(x) exists at x in dx->0. One cannot distinguish any probabilistic hit distribution. exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx) differ even though they are linked with the same kinetic energy pp/2m (nonrelativistic case). We argued in Part 1, that the Newtonian conservation of energy equation actually includes a force profile linked with V(x). The catch is that for V(x) one has a force at each x, dx->0. Such is not the case for exp(ipx). We argued in Part 1 that one must consider not only pp/2m, but the associated spatial probability distribution for hits (i.e. energy together with force). Here, we note that this idea gives rise to an equilibrium calculation. This is somewhat startling because classically, and even quantum mechanically for higher energy levels, a particle moves to the right part of the time and then to the left for other times. As a result, a calculation which respects time would not average over exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx). Only an equilibrium calculation in time would do so. We suggest that one must consider the Newtonian conservation of energy equation as applying to both p(x) and -p(x) and so from an energy point of view one may consider it to be an average. The catch is that each term p(x) and -p(x) yields the same kinetic energy profile in the Newtonian case and the same V(x). For a quantum particle the kinetic energy with probabilistic force distribution is not the same for p and -p. As a result, to use V(x) which applies to forward and backwards motion, one is forced to consider the average and this leads to an equilibrium scenario. We show that the average kinetic with probabilistic force hit profile in space is not the same for +p and -p. Measurements, however, take time and may be averages of much data and so the notion of an average or equilibrium seems to make sense. We note, however, that an average is very different from the Newtonian forwards-backwards motion picture. Only in the high energy limit does the energy pp/2m with probabilistic force profile become the same for both p and -p. Thus, the main point of this note is to stress the notion of a single particle bound state as an average and to point out the consequences of this.
If a Lagrangian contains a potential dependent on dx/dt, it is possible this does not contribute to the classical equations of motion. Nevertheless, the fact that the potential is present suggests there is a physical impact. A different Lagrangian yielding the same equations of motion, does not necessarily represent the same physical situation i.e. the equations of motion do not uniquely determine a physical situation. In particular, using the Lagrange formalism yields momentum=p = dL / d (dx/dt) which may contain the usual m dx/dt term plus terms from velocity related potentials. We argued in previous notes, that for quantum mechanics there is a momentum distribution at each x point which yields an average pp/2m at x. Moving from one x to another yields a change in pp indicating an average acceleration. The potential V(x), it was argued, may be written as Sum over k Vk exp(ikx). Thus, it is stochastic, yielding momentum hits of k which only yield a force -dV/dx on average. Given that average acceleration is stochastic, average momentum should also be stochastic. For the case of a potential A(x)dx/dt, the Lagrangian momentum dL/d (dx/dt)= mdx/dt +A(x). dx/dt is an average of stochastic value i.e. Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx), but A(x) is also stochastic i.e. A(x)= Sum over k Ak exp(ikx). One may combine the two terms to create a term of the form bk exp(i j x). We argue that this contains the combined stochasticity of p and A(x). Special considerations show that if W(x)=Wo(x)W1(x), then one may break out W1(x) as a phase related directly to A(x) i.e. W1(x)= exp{ i (Integral dx1 (0,x) A(x1) } which is experimentally observable.
Quantum mechanics utilizes a wavefunction W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) (in time independent cases) with exp(ipx) being what we call a free particle complex probability. In such a case, W(x) is an OR scenario of these various probabilities. We have argued in previous notes that exp(ipx) is the probability for a p impulse hit at x, even if the center-of-mass of the particle is not at x. This means that impulse hits may occur probabilistically in space as in the 2-slit example which requires adding two probabilities as an OR case for each slit. The point then seems to be that W(x) (or even its momentum frozen form W*(x)W(x) gives a profile in space of the number of interactions (various p impulse hits) at each x. Classically, the kinetic energy (nonrelativistic) is pp/2m. In a classical bound problem this kinetic energy is considered to exist (in calculations) at the center-of-mass, but forces are also said to be rendered at this point so pp/2m, the center-of-mass and the force hit point all coincide. In quantum mechanics, a p impulse hit and the center-of-mass do not coincide. If p is said to hit at a probabilistic x, then it seems that pp/2m should also be seen to exist at this same hit point. A physical interaction point verifies in a sense the location of pp/2m in a probabilistic manner, i.e. a(p) exp(ipx)/W(x) is the probability used to calculate KEaverage and this is based on impulse hit locations. By normalizing using W(x), one removes the relative number of average hits at each x and obtains a pure energy value at x. (This may then be used in a KEave(x)+V(x)=E equation.) On average W(x) has zero points, which means that if one considers W*(x)W(x) to represent the motion-frozen-out spatial distribution of hits, then no hits are rendered at certain x points (on average). One might argue then that the particle cannot exist at x, but the center-of-mass can exist anywhere. One might next argue that there is no kinetic energy at x, but that cannot be true because 1/2m d/dx d/dx W has the same 0 points as W and the two divide. Thus, there is average kinetic energy at all bound points and this represents an average based on impulse hits (exp(ipx)). Classically, if one has many particles in a potential, one may write density(x)V(x) to find the potential energy of the particles. This implies that the particles interact with V(x), e.g. neutrinos usually do not interact. Density(x) in a classical sense means that the center-of-mass and force hit point are both at x. In quantum mechanics, exp(ipx) represents the probability for a force hit point, W(x) represents an average and W*(x)W(x) represents a motion-frozen average hit point. W*(x)W(x)V(x) seems to represent the average potential energy of the particle at x because W*(x)W(x) is linked with interaction. Even if a particle is not present, however, there is energy V(x) in space. It seems that if W*(x)W(x)=0 at some x, then there is no average particle interaction at this point, but there is still average kinetic energy Sum over p a(p)pp/2m exp(ipx) / W(x) based on the probability for average probability hits. The key idea is that one normalizes probability by dividing by W(x) in the average kinetic energy calculation. W*(x)W(x) is normalized not at x, but integrating over dx and setting this value to 1. One has relative hit at x values represented by W*(x)W(x). For exp(-ipx)exp(ipx)=1, each dx has the same average hit value (with one not being able to distinguish details in hbar/p, i.e. this is a motion frozen result. The question then becomes: Why would one write: W*(x)W(x) KEave(x)? One might argue that this term occurs if one takes the quantum mechanical equation: KEave(x) +V(x) = En and multiplies by W*(x)W(x). One may ask: Does V(x)W*(x)W(x) have physical meaning? V(x) is the potential energy at x. The average interaction probability with V(x) at x should be W(x)V(x) and not W*(x)W(x)V(x). The latter is a classical mechanical idealization. If W*(x)W(x) is 3 at x1 and 2 at x2, then it is as if the particle interacts 1.5 times more at x1 and so if V(x1)=V(x2), then this approach assumes 1.5 the interaction energy at x1. KEave(x), however, is simply free particle energy (average) at x and one does not need to take this average value and multiply it by the relative number of interactions at x. W(x) has zero points meaning that there is no interaction at such a point on average. KEave(x) on the other hand is the average energy at x based on the particle kinetic energy presence pp/2m being at the point of an impulse hit. This does not mean that an interaction is occurring with V(x) at this point in this formalism. Even a free particle has an exp(ipx) probability when it is not interacting. The sum Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) means that all of the interactions linked with x have occurred and one is making an OR calculation. KEave(x) is free particle kinetic energy at x and V(x) is potential energy (not interaction potential energy with the particle). Multiplying by W*(x)W(x) is a classical minded approach to creating a classical equation: density(x) (KEave(x)+V(x)) = E density(x) ((1)) Here KEave(x) would represent the average kinetic energy of a single particle and density(x) would be the average number of particles at x. density(x)KE(x) has a clear meaning. W*(x)W(x) KEave(x) on the other hand is different. KEave(x) is actually the classical kinetic energy value at x and so it is not clear why one would multiply it by W*(x)W(x). W*(x)W(x) represents the probability for an impulse hit at x in a p-frozen out picture. The notion of exp(ipx) (i.e. probability for a p hit at x) is already buried within the quantum calculation of KEave(x) (which yields the classical value). In order to find the physical meaning of W*(x)W(x) multiplied by KEave(x) or V(x) it seems that one has broken dx into equally sized segments which correspond to different detection hits of the particle. This is then somehow equated with the presence of the particle per unit time in dx which is then somehow rendered as the average energy at x multiplied by the detected presence at x through a steady rate of measurement/time. Thus, multiplying by W*(x)W(x) is not multiplying by a physical density.
In Newtonian mechanics, force and energy are clearly separated. For example, pp/2m = Integral F dx = Integral dp/dt dx = m/2 vv = pp/2m. The equation pp/2m + V(x) = E is considered to be strictly an energy equation. In special relativity, mocc is considered to be strictly an energy. We have suggested in previous notes that mo is proportional to inertia which is a force. Thus, mo and mocc are thought of in two very different manners simultaneouly, i.e. as an energy and as a force. We propose that it might be beneficial to think of both mo and V(x) in terms of energy and force distribution simultaneously. In particular, we consider that V(x) is not only potential energy at x, but is also linked to force or interaction at x through -d/dx V(x). The reason this duality of energy-force may be important is that it is directly linked to quantum mechanics, we argue. In general, it is argued that classical mechanics is a high energy level limit of quantum mechanics, We argue, however, that for a single particle bound state, the energy linked with a momentum p (at any energy level) is pp/2m (nonrelativistic) which is deterministic (and also follows from special relativity) and has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. The difference between classical mechanics and quantum, is that there exists an interaction (impulse hit) probability of exp(ipx) which means that instead of a hit occurring at the center-of-mass point, it may occur within an hbar/p range. Thus, one may have a particle interact and move through either of two slits if they are separated by about hbar/p. If p, however, is changed in an interaction, p1->p2, then the change in energy p2p2/2m - p1p1/2m (one dimension) is classical-deterministic. It is, however, the duality of V(x) with force that force one to consider not only energy pp/2m (deterministic), but also its associated force distribution given by exp(ipx) / W(x), where W(x) = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). As a result, one creates the average kinetic energy term: {Sum over p a(p) pp/2m exp(ipx) } / W(x). One may call exp(ipx)/W(x) a probability and so formally one has KEave(x), but physically exp(ipx) represents a force distribution. The balance to V(x) is a combination of a deterministic energy pp/2m with a force distribution exp(ipx)/W(x). This, we argue, is a physical statement and helps to describe why V(x) may be expanded as a series of virtual particles (e.g. photons etc). It is not just energy, but force that must be considered together. It is only in classical physics, pp/2m + V(x) = E that one solely considers the energy aspects, i.e. pp/2m and V(x) only as energy, but the more general picture, we argue, is to consider not only energy, but force distribution together. This is the quantum picture and it incorporates not only probability, but deterministic Newtonian mechanics (or special relativity) through the use of pp/2m.
A classical bound state does indicate the direction of motion if one only considers kinetic energy pp/2m. It is the vector quantities, p and x, which indicate direction. In quantum mechanics, a free particle interaction probability (for impulse hits) is directional, i.e. exp(ipx) not= exp(-ipx). Unless one has a single value of pp/2m, KE+= sum over p>0 a(p)exp(ipx) pp/2m / Sum over p>0 a(p)exp(ipx) is not equal to KE- even if a(p)=a(-p). In order to use conservation of energy in quantum mechanics, one is forced to consider both a(p)exp(ipx) +a(p)exp(-ipx) with a(p)=a(-p) which is the correct statistical weighting for a bound state. One may note that exp(ipx) is a probability for interaction and is separate from x=p/m t even though the notion of this velocity is tied to the fact that nonrelativistic kinetic energy is pp/2m. As a result, one must use an average scenario for calculating kinetic energy which seems to be tied to an ensemble average. Such a notion should hold for all energy levels. If one considers the classical limit, then one has p(x)p(x)/2m in a tiny dx. If one were to simply use 1/sqrt(p)exp(ip(x) x)/sqrt(dx) in dx, then Integral W*W dx in dx = C/p. The relative weight of two adjacent dx regions is: p1/ p2 = p1 / (p1+dp). This is equivalent to probabilities proportional to dt= dx/v, where p=mv. Thus, the area represented by W*W captures the number of possible interactions in dx if attempted hits have a fixed period. We argue, however, that given the bound state conservation recipe, one must use a(p) (exp(ipx)+exp(-ipx)) to describe a dx (with p=p(x)), even in the high energy limit. exp(ipx) is simply an interaction pattern (and is a probability) and so if the particle is bound, the correct statistical thing to do for an ensemble seems to be to combine exp(ipx) with exp(-ipx). We then show that quantum mechanics lowers the number of interactions in an area with increased speed more than the classical case. In particular, we find instead of p/(p+dp), 1- dp/p - 2dp/(pp).
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.