In Part II of this note, we argued that if one describes a bound particle in a potential in a statistical manner, like classical statistical mechanics, one is led to a complex, periodic space invariant probability, exp(ipx), for a free particle. We showed that exp(ipx) represents a two vector solution to the vector operated on by a rotation matrix (using cos(px), -sin(px)) set equal to a translation operator 1+delta X d/dx operating on the same vector. In this note, we examine the electromagnetic scenario. The idea of a “wave” describing a photon first emerged with Maxwell and his equations in the 1800s, with interference/diffraction and the speed of light both appearing. It was later found (Einstein and the photoelectric effect) that electromagnetic energy is not spread out all over space like a wave, but is concentrated. Furthermore, if one uses probabilistic ideas to obtain exp(ipx) for a quantum particle, like an electron, which undergoes two slit interference, then why would not two slit interference for photons also be considered in terms of probability? In this note, we examine these ideas.
In Part II of this note, we argued that if one describes a bound particle in a potential in a statistical manner, like classical statistical mechanics, one is led to a complex, periodic space invariant probability, exp(ipx), for a free particle. We showed that exp(ipx) represents a two vector solution to the vector operated on by a rotation matrix (using cos(px), -sin(px)) set equal to a translation operator 1+delta X d/dx operating on the same vector. In this note, we examine the electromagnetic scenario. The idea of a “wave” describing a photon first emerged with Maxwell and his equations in the 1800s, with interference/diffraction and the speed of light both appearing. It was later found (Einstein and the photoelectric effect) that electromagnetic energy is not spread out all over space like a wave, but is concentrated. Furthermore, if one uses probabilistic ideas to obtain exp(ipx) for a quantum particle, like an electron, which undergoes two slit interference, then why would not two slit interference for photons also be considered in terms of probability? In this note, we examine these ideas.
In quantum mechanics, a free particle is represented by exp(ipx). It has often been noted that exp(-ipx) exp(ipx) =1 yields equal probability for any point x. In classical mechanics, one might argue that a constant real number suffices. The form exp(ipx) is also identical to the classical electromagnetic expression associated with light (i.e. a photon). In this note, we wish to begin with the idea of an ensemble of momenta at x using a real probability f(p,x) and create a conservation of energy equation i.e. KEave(x) + V(x) = E. This equation may be differentiated to yield a force equation with d f(p,x)/dx. If one argues that should appear in such an equation, one has a link between d f(p,x)/dx and . One finds that f(p,x), which we assume to be the same for p and -p so that pf(p,x)-pf(p,x)=0 as in classical statistical mechanics, may be generalized to f(p,x) + i g(p,x) with g(p,x) linked to d f(p,x)/dx and . In other words, quantum mechanics includes two components, one associated with V(x) and <pp/2m at x> and another with F(x) and . The Bohm Aharonov effect seems to justify such an approach because one may have V(x) non-zero and F(x) zero and still have physical effects, thus a potential V(x) and F(x) may both have separate physical consequences. Using cos(px) and isin(px) seems to track these two separate consequences through the separate consequences of and <pp/2m at x>. For a classical particle, p becomes pp by squaring so the two do not need to be treated with two separate “dimensions’ i.e. cos(px) and isin(px). In this note, we try to obtain the form exp(ipx) from the more general exp( i Theta(x,p)) without resorting to the form exp(ipx) of a photon in classical electromagnetism and also consider an interpretation.
Free quantum particles may be represented by a wavefunction of exp(ipx) where “px” suggests a resolution scale L with p=2(3.14)hbar/L. In this note, we suggest that such a resolution may already be present in classical mechanics. exp(ipx) is a periodic form which incorporates this resolution and through a modulus of 1 ensures equal probability to be at any point x. In order to use exp(ipx), it seems that there must be a physical mechanics associated with the resolution. Given that exp(ipx)=cos(px) + isin(px), we argue that two different probability cycling or flows exist, one related to energy (pp/2m) and time and the other to flux- momentum and space i.e. sin(px). The link between the two is: cos(px)cos(px)+sin(px)sin(px) =1 i.e. the two are out of phase. This appears to be similar to the two dimensions x and ict. Each cycle or flow has its own frequency with positive and negative mutually exclusive subdivisions within resolution pockets, 1/E for time and L with p=2(3.14)hbar/L for space. The frequencies are associated by positive and negative probabilities (linked perhaps with forward and backward motions etc) and lead to interference if one considers different momentum values. We attmept to consider these issues in this note. In addition, we examine ln(W) representing information, with W(x), being the wavefunction . The change in information is -i dx . Thus, it seems that momentum flow carries information in a quantum bound state.
In Part III we considered the quantum free particle wavefunction exp(ipx) as consisting of two parts cos(px) and sin(px) treated as two different dimensions. We also argued that each, is a probability distribution in space and so associated with an internal force. One may notice that exp(ipx) does not contain time, but still predicts the direction of motion. Given that one cannot consider x(t) within a wavelength hbar/p even though on average the particle moves as x=p/m t, there is no real sense of time within a wavelength. Extending this idea, one repeats cos(px) humps. Given that the particle is moving, one must somehow juxtapose two spatial probability densities. The derivative of the distribution is proportional to average momentum and so one may see the notion of action-reaction occurring between cos(px) and sin(px) and within cos(px) and sin(px) accounting for the sign changes with x. We argue that d/dx cos(px) regions which change sign imply that the impulse direction changes. Furthermore, cos(px) has regions near the endpoints of the wavelength which have very low values (close to zero) which is fine if one has two juxtapositioned distributions. If, however, one creates a single particle bound state, exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx) for a(p)=a(-p) (a specific parity) give the appearance of a cancelation leaving the impression of 2cos(px) i.e a single “static” distribution. This occurs because there is no internal time in the picture and so p and -p probabilities add. The so-called canceled pieces have not really disappeared. as will be argued, they simply do not contribute to an average impulse which is what experiments apparently detect. Thus “negative” quantum probability is linked to impulse in the opposite direction, we argue. Thus interference is really linked to the notion of probabilistic impulses i.e. p exp(ipx) even though exp(ipx) is used as a kind of probability. exp(ipx) contains internal action-reaction impulse hits which have experimental consequences as we argue is shown in a reflection/refraction problem, but are also linked with impulse hits associated with p. Thus there are two sets of forces to deal with. This, we argue, explains why one writes the energy conservation equation AA/c1=BB/c1+CC/c2 for reflection/refraction where A,B,C represent the incident, reflected and refracted rays and AA simply shows that intensity/flux is positive as two equations: A+B=C and Ap - pB = p2C with E=pc. The two equations,, needed to solve for B,C in terms of A,, describe the internal force in exp(ipx) and the probabilistic impulse p exp(ipx). For a single particle bound state, one considers a linear combination of free particle states indicating that impulse hits represent the underlying physics. Given the apparent spatial invariance of a free particle exp(ipx), one may wonder how a kinetic energy profile appears. We argue that different p values yield different peak points for maximum impulse hits and these are out of synch leading to a spatial distribution of KE(x) or d/dx KE(x) which is equivalent to -dV/dx =Force where V(x) is the potential.
In a previous note, we argued that a quantum wavefunction W(x) is a relative conditional probability at x such that: W(x+dx)=W(x)exp[i dx d lnW/dx (1/i)] ((1)) where = -i d/dx lnW and <pp ave at x>= - d/dx d/dx W/W. The latter may be utilized in an energy conservation equation to yield either the Schrodinger or Klein-Gordon equation. W(x) in general is periodic with positive and negative values. Alternatively, one may write: W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) which implies a particle may be in an instantaneous free momentum p state. These states “interfere” not just at the exp(ipx) level, but also when forming averages of p or pp/2m because exp(ipx)=cos(px) + i sin(px) and both functions take on positive and negative values. One may argue that “coarse graining” occurs removing extra information contained in the exp(ipx)’s. We wish to investigate this further in this note. In particular, we wish to show that ((1)) together with KEave(x) + V(x) = E seems to force interference upon exp(ipx) components.
We have argued in previous notes (1) that the “wave” nature of quantum mechanics follows from the Lorentz invariant for a constant p: A= -Et+px which holds for both a particle with rest mass and a photon. In A, t and x are separated indicating independence which violates the Newtonian view x(t). “A” leads to dA/dx partial = p and dA/dt= -E. Creating eigenvalue equations yields: -id/dx exp(ipx) = p exp(ipx) and id/dt exp(-iEt) = E exp(-iEt). Thus, x and t may be separated. Given that exp(ipx) exists in all of space (because there is no time), it represents a somewhat spatially invariant probability. In the case of a photon, Maxwell showed one may write wave equations for the electric El and magnetic B fields using his electromagnetic equations with no charge or currents.. He showed the wave travels at the speed of light in a vacuum and thus characterized light as an electromagnetic wave. This is not the same statement as exp(ipx) which is a probability wave. One may note that Maxwell’s equations are Lorentz invariant, so the ideas of the first paragraph should hold. In this note, however, we consider the Poynting equation: d/dt partial (.5( eoElEl+1/uoBB)) + 1/uo grad dot El x B = function(charge and current). 1/uo ElxB is considered to be a momentum density. We note Maxwell’s equations contain d/dt partial and d/dx partial, so time and space are considered independent (unlike x(t)), and act on El and B. The presence of charge and current densities breaks spatial invariance i.e. creates local regions. We argue in this note that d/dx and d/dt are generators of translations in space and time. We further argue that Maxwell’s theoretical creation of a photon follows from introducing spatial invariance into the problem, i.e. removing all charge and current densities. Spatial invariance in Newtonian mechanics, however, is associated with a constant i.e. a constant speed and momentum and equal probability to be at any x. Given that d/dx and d/dt appear, one has a function of space and time which seems to be completely at odds with spatial invariance and the idea of a constant momentum. We have argued in (2), however, that constant motion, even though represented by v=constant, is associated with the force that created the momentum, and this manifests itself in a spatial density which is probabilistic. Thus the presence of d/dt and d/dx in Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations, even when charge and current densities are removed, implies the same thing. Thus we argue that Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations are probabilistic. We investigate these ideas in this note. We further argue that it is spatial invariance, together with the presence of d/dx partial which yields the periodic form exp(ipx). Thus it is not a coincidence that wave equations appear for El and B.
It is sometimes stated in the literature (1) that quantum mechanics is based on conditional probabilities. If this is the case, one would expect such conditional probabilities to appear in a single particle bound state. A free quantum particle is associated with a probability to interact of exp(ipx) (linked to 2-slit interference, 1-D reflection-refraction at an n1-n2 junction etc), but the kinetic energy and momentum are pp/2m (nonrelativistic) and p at all x even though each x has a different phase according to exp(ipx). The momentum is p at x, but the probability for an impulse hit at x is not the same even though its modulus is. When different probabilities exp(ipx) add in an OR situation, this leads to a spatial pattern which no longer has a modulus of 1, i.e. translational invariance is broken. Such a pattern also occurs for a single particle bound state W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). W(x) can have 0 points, but the average kinetic energy -1/2m d/dx dW/dx / W is not 0 at such a point. One has, on average (a statistical calculation), no average interaction at such an x point. One might ask why this should have anything to do with average kinetic energy? If one writes a conservation law: KEave(x) + V(x) = 0, then one considers kinetic energy interacting with potential energy. If there is no interaction at some x point for a given p (not W(x) on average), then it should not be part of the conservation of energy at this point. One is only interested in kinetic energy which interacts with potential energy at each x point. Thus, a(p) exp(ipx) + a(-p) exp(-ipx) (with a(p)=a(-p)) may have a 0 point at some x and so it does not have an average interaction at such a point, i.e. pp/2m (a(p)exp(ipx) + a(-p)exp(-ipx)) = 0. As a result, in a bound state, one considers kinetic energy per p, -p multiplied by the average probability (p, -p). Different a(p)exp(ipx) + a(-p)exp(-ipx) (a(p)=a(-p)) weights in this average picture indicate the extent to which the particle interacts. This idea holds for a single p,-p pair, but one must normalize over all such pairs, leading to the idea of a conditional probability. Given that hbar/p must be “created physically” in space so to speak, one must have interaction probability which creates this physical situation even in cos(px)+ i sin(px). This leads to the idea of interaction probability being 0, positive, but <1, or even negative and it is the interaction which allows one to consider conservation of energy with a potential V(x) in the first place. As a result, one cannot include a full pp/2m if there is negative, 0 or only particle interaction. Thus, pp/2m is multiplied by 2 a(p)cos(px) /W(x) for a(p)=a(-p).