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.
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 I we suggested that free particle quantum mechanics seems to follow from special relativity. In this note, we focus on the idea of a rest frame defining a rest mass. In such a frame momentum is zero i.e. one has the 4-vector (0,mo)=(p,E). (x,t), however, is also a 4-vector which is usually assigned to a point in space time. In Part I, however, we considered (x,t)=(0,to) associating p=0 and x=0 and alternatively mo and to. Velocity is usually defined as dx/dt =v, but using the Lorentz transformation (1) (with v set to -v), (x,t)=(0,to) transforms to x’/t’ = v. The relationship between x,p and t,E is further manifested through the Lorentz invariant -Et+px in which E scales t and p, x. This we suggest breaks space into pieces proportional to 1/p and time (independently) into pieces proportional to 1/E We next consider particles “created” at different x points. In other words (0,mo) applies, but the particles are at different x positions. In order to keep the relationship p=0,x=0, one must have an x origin at all particle positions. Then spatial scaling of 1/p does not line up unless the particles are n/p (n=integer) apart. Otherwise the scaling in space is unaligned. For different p, scaling in space is unaligned already with (0,mo) and (0, to). Thus for two particles with the same p, but created at different x values at different times and arriving at x1, t1, if there is no alignment, special relativity suggests these two are distinguishable, while Newtonian mechanics does not distinguish. This distinguishability, however, depends on a physical mechanism i.e. a wavelength. Thus, even without considering different p (momentum) values, two identical momenta should be distinguishable if they are not aligned in terms of p scaling even for the same rest mass mo. This we argue is strictly a result of special relativity and is support for the exp(ipx) form of quantum free particle mechanics.
In (1) a Galilean transformation x’ = x-vt and t’=t is applied to the Schrodinger equation id/dt (partial) W(x,t) = -1/2m d/dx d/dx W(x,t) for a free particle, where W(x,t) is the wavefunction, and it is argued that W’(x’,t’) does not equal W(x(x’t,t’),t(x’,t’)). Instead it is shown that W’(x’,t’) = W(x,t) exp( -i/bar [mvx’+.5mvvt’] with x=x’+vt’ and t=t’. The author’s of (1) suggest this is due to remnants of special relativity creeping into the nonrelativistic situation. They then argue that this issue is already found in nonrelativistic classical mechanics, in particular in the Hamiltonian-Jacobi equation H(x, dS/dx) + dS/dt = 0 where S is the free particle action= t *Lagrangian and H is the Hamiltonian i.e 1/2m dS/dx dS/dx. They show that S’(x’,t’) = S(x,t) - (mvx’ +.5mvvt’) and also argue that this is due to a remnant of special relativity creeping into nonrelativistic classical mechanics. In this note, we consider the free particle action S= -Et+px nonrelativistically. (This form also holds for the relativistic free particle). It may be seen that such a solution satisfies the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, but the catch seems to be that one must transform both (x,t) and (p,E) to find a solution in a moving frame. The Galilean transformation leads to two different transformations, one for (x,t) and another for (p,E). A Lorentz transformation on the other hand treats (x,t) and (p,E) in the same way and -Et+px behaves as a dot product with a (1,-1) type metric. We argue that given the physical example of a particle with rest mass mo at x=0 at t=to, a moving frame transforms this into a new energy (including mo and kinetic energy), a p and x’,t’ such that x’/t’=v where -v is the velocity of the frame. One may suggest a more general transformation than the Galilean i.e. replace t’=t with t’=g(v) t. This then leads to -Et+px written in terms of E’,t’, p’,x’ equalling -E’t’ + p’x’ if g(v) = 1/sqrt(1-vv/bb) where b is a constant to make v/b dimensionless. Applying the transformation, which we assume holds for both (x,t) and (p,E) to light yields b=c. One may then show that -Et+px, written in terms of E’,t’,p’,x’, yields -E’t’ + p’x’,
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.
Momentum and velocity are two well-known physical observables in classical physics (and quantum physics as well because quantum particles have impulse and move through space in a certain amount of time based on an external clock and ruler). They are, however, measured in different ways. Velocity describes motion through x in some time t, while p is measured through impulses. Thus one does not need a clock to measure momentum. It may be measured in terms of the damage done to a foil, compression of a spring etc. Thus p=m1v1=m2v2 etc., i.e. a numerical number associated with momentum does not automatically yield the velocity unless one knows rest mass. In many situations rest mass is known (i.e. one deals with an electron etc) and so there seems to be a tendency to consider momentum and velocity to be almost the same thing when they are distinctly different. In fact, we argue that the notion of wavefunction W(x) and density P(x)=W*(x)W(x) are associated with momentum and velocity respectively. In fact, for a free particle these two measurables are linked with completely different spatial probabilities. Constant velocity impies P(x)=constant while exp(ipx) describes the two-dimensional x-probability associated with p which is based on a constant mo and v. In special relativity for a free particle (i.e. p constant, v constant), there are two well known Lorentz invariants: EE = pp + momo (c=1) and A = -Et + px. One may note that v does not appear explicitly even though one may write E and p in terms of v i.e. E = mo/sqrt(1-vv) and p=Ev. The first invariant describes E in terms of rest mass and p (measured through impulse). The second involves p,E and x,t with x and t appearing as independent even though ultimately x(t) and v=dx/dt=constant = x/t if x and t both start at 0. This independence is crucial because it means one may consider fluctuations which keep A constant separately. For example, if t→ t+ hbar/E and x→ x+hbar/p, then A remains constant. This leads to the idea of the quantum wavelength and a spatial probability independent of t, namely exp(ipx). One average, however, x=vt, but how does this appear in Lorentz invariants? There is no explicit v. We argue that the Lorentz invariant A = -Et + px must convert E from a function of p to one in v and that this occurs through a Legendre transformation. Thus the form of the invariant is itself a Legendre transformation with E being transformed into L, the Lagrangian. There is, however, a second important feature because p=dL/dv (partial) and given that p is constant, dp/dt=0 so d/dt dL/dv partial =0 which is in the form of an extremization. We argue that this is not an accident. dL/dv=p follows from E being constant, so, in other words, it follows from the px term. This same term leads to exp(ipx) which means that one does not have smooth x=vt motion within a wavelength. Thus, we argue that when one transforms to the second measurable v, the notion of this fluctuation behaviour must also be manifested. In other words, v=constant or dv/dt is not enough. The extremization behaviour of the Lagrangian, we argue, is thus not a mathematical convenience, but gives an indication that even though the extreme path x=vt is followed on average, other paths are sampled. We argue that this idea is incorporated into special relativity, in fact within a single Lorentz invariant A = -Et + px.
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.
In a previous note (1) we considered a rest mass mo at x=0 and t=to and argued this transforms to E’, p’ with x’/t’=v. Thus a single system may be Lorentz transformed to create particles with mo and all velocities. We suggested that all of these particles are on the same footing in a sense. In this note we try to investigate what this “footing” is. In particular, we suggest nonlocality. A particle with rest mass mo, likely occupies some region of space, but is treated as a point (i.e. x=0) which may be the center of mass.The idea of a particle considered as a point is carried over into special relativity i.e motion. In Newtonian mechanics the particle is also considered to be a point. We argue that even though a particle “system” with mo at x=0 and t=to is a point and that after moving there may still be an x’/t’ = v pertaining to one point representing the system, the localization of mo at x=0 may be transformed into a localization in every constant moving frame. This localization seems to be linked to the idea of x and t being independent in -Et+px just as a particle at x=0 and t=to at rest treats x and t as independent. Thus we argue that the localization is the “same footing” of particles with different v and hence momenta mov. The dot product -Et+px = A is -moto for the rest frame which tends to 0 for to→0 . For any frame, t=b/E and x=b/p yields the same A=0. Furthermore x=b/p and t=b/E is a recipe which holds in all frames and describes nonlocality or a “trapped” length associated with the moving particle. This trapped length is not associated with time because x and t are independent. In other words the system moves with a speed of v=x’/t’, but the particle is “trapped” within a wavelength of the order 1/p in the sense that there is a cycling probability as the particle moves through space ignoring time. One does not simply have a point at rest transformed into a point in motion describing all aspects of the moving particle. If one considers x=0 and x=1/p, particles with different p values may follow the same probability distribution associated with energy flow in the region of one wavelength. If one ignores the motion v=x’/t’, then since time is ignored it is as if one has a particle with different probabilities to be at different x points. In a bound quantum state, time is physically dropped and these probabilities are linked to actual densities. For a moving particle (in one direction) one must consider the point motion v=x’/t’, but also kind of periodic trapping of the particle in space (not linked to time). In order to quantify this for a quantum free particle, one may consider the idea of a particle system with a length proportional to 1/p which is consistent with P(x)=constant. In particular, one may take the square root of 1 so to speak to obtain exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx). This also follows from eigenvalue equations of A= -Et+px i.e. -id/dx exp(ipx) = p exp(ipx). It should be noted (as stated above) that exp(ipx) does not involve time. Thus the trapping is in space and may occur over a long period of time if the velocity is very slow i.e. 1/p is very large. In a sense the particle is trapped in a kind of periodic motion in space. There is locality in the sense of position x’/t’=v, but not in the sense of the trapped periodic motion. The nonlocality seems to exist one opposite scales than the usual point velocity. For example, if a particle has a very small velocity then x’/t’=v→0 i.e. one thinks in terms of a very small x’, but 1/p is very large.