A single particle bound wavefunction may be written as a Fourier series W(x)exp(-iEt) = exp(-iEt) Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx). We argued in previous notes (1) that exp(ipx) is a statistical free particle conditional probability whose modulus of 1 corresponds to P(x)=constant. For the case of a potential V(x), we argue it is stochastic and write it as: Sum over k Vk exp(ikx). The stochastic potential gives rise to a momentum distribution: P(p/x) = a(p) exp(ipx) / W(x) at each x. A resonance, however, seems to occur because writing W(x) and V(x) in the time-independent Schrodinger equation as Fourier series, yields: pp/2m a(p) + Sum over k Vk a(p-k) = E a(p) ((1)) Thus, a(p) is really a combination of other a(p-k) or, in other words, there is a correlation between different free particle momentum states. If such is the case for single particle interactions with a stochastic potential, we argue it is possible a correlation may exist for two particles. In other words, a stochastic potential may not necessarily produce two separate resonances for two quantum particles such as ((1)), but may instead form an overall resonance involving both momenta p1 and p2 “interacting or communicating” with Vk as in the case of entanglement. We attempt to investigate these ideas in this note.
A single particle bound wavefunction may be written as a Fourier series W(x)exp(-iEt) = exp(-iEt) Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx). We argued in previous notes (1) that exp(ipx) is a statistical free particle conditional probability whose modulus of 1 corresponds to P(x)=constant. For the case of a potential V(x), we argue it is stochastic and write it as: Sum over k Vk exp(ikx). The stochastic potential gives rise to a momentum distribution: P(p/x) = a(p) exp(ipx) / W(x) at each x. A resonance, however, seems to occur because writing W(x) and V(x) in the time-independent Schrodinger equation as Fourier series, yields: pp/2m a(p) + Sum over k Vk a(p-k) = E a(p) ((1)) Thus, a(p) is really a combination of other a(p-k) or, in other words, there is a correlation between different free particle momentum states. If such is the case for single particle interactions with a stochastic potential, we argue it is possible a correlation may exist for two particles. In other words, a stochastic potential may not necessarily produce two separate resonances for two quantum particles such as ((1)), but may instead form an overall resonance involving both momenta p1 and p2 “interacting or communicating” with Vk as in the case of entanglement. We attempt to investigate these ideas in this note.
In an earlier note, bound pure states were described in terms of cycling of momentum states exp(ipx) which scattered off a potential V(x) from one momentum state into another in a time of 1/E. If the average kinetic energy, defined by [Sum over p p*p/2m fp exp(ipx)] / W(x), where W(x)=wavefunction = Sum over p fp exp(ipx) = normalization constant, satisfies a conservation of energy equation: KE ave + V(x) = E, one obtains the time-independent Schrodinger equation. It was also argued the Schrodinger equation may be written in terms of a cycling equation by writing both V(x) and W(x) as a Fourier series and equating exp(ipx) terms, namely: Sum k+j=p Vk fj + p*p/2m fp = E fp ((1)) In other words, fj scatter with fk to produce fp and potential energy, which together with the kinetic energy of fp yield a constant (energy) times fp. This is of the form of an equation with a separable time portion id/dt W(t,x) = E W(x). It should be noted that in ((1)), the fj’s are correlated with fp. In this note, we try to argue that quantum bound states demonstrate strong correlations between fp’s and also try to extend the cycling model described above to mixed states.
In Newtonian mechanics, a space-dependent potential V(x) is associated with both a change in energy in x and a conservative force -dV/dx. There is no notion of an interaction through a resonance, even though classically resonance situations exist. A quantum free particle is represented by the space and time two-dimensional probability distributions exp(ipx) and exp(-iEt) with x and t representing independent variables, even though on average there exists the relationship x= p/m t. In the case of the time-independent Schrodinger equation, one uses a potential V(x) taken from “classical” physics which is combined with the nonclassical exp(ipx) (i.e. with time removed). An immediate issue, we argue, is that V(x) implies different potential energy values at each x, while exp(ipx) → cos(px) describes probabilities at different x points associated with the same p. According to classical mechanics, p should change from one x point to another in a deterministic manner governed by V(x). Thus there exists a contradiction. We argue that the probabilistic form cos(px) remains intact, but that the interaction between an exp(ipx) and V(x) involves the formation of a probability resonance which involves other exp(ipx)s in the problem. In other words, V(x)=Sum over k Vk exp(ikx) suggests that the potential also behaves in a probabilistic manner and one may have Vkexp(ikx) a(p-k) exp(i (p-k) x) = Vka(p-k) exp(ipx). One may argue that Sum over k Vk expIkx) is simply a mathematical formalism (namely a Fourier series) without any physical manifestation. In this note, however, we argue against this and suggest that the “resonance” involved is linked with physical probability distributions which exist in both V(x) and external energy-supplying objects (such as a photon). According to the time-independent Schrodinger equation there are discrete energy levels associated with this differential equation, so an entity which may provide energy is required to lift a quantum bound particle from one energy level to the next. Electrons in an atom absorb photons to move to higher levels. Thus the photon is an energy-supplier and the fact that it has a spatial wavelength does not seem to directly enter into the solution of the time-dependent Schrodinger equation. If, however, a particle may only interact through a probability resonance, we argue that it is not only the potential V(x) which must physically be able to interact in a probabilistic way, but also any energy entities used to supply energy. Thus we argue that a photon must have a spatial distribution i..e wavelength to allow it to be part of the formation of spatial resonances in the particle - V(x) system which it in fact does. Thus we argue that the wavelength of a photon is experimental evidence for x-probability distribution resonances which occur between V(x) and a bound particle.
In previous notes, we argued one may formulate bound state quantum mechanics by assuming a stochastic potential which delivers “hits” of momentum k V(k) exp(ikx), while having an average form of V(x). A main constraint seems to be that the different k V(k) exp(ikx) hits may occur at any x point and that V(x) be of the form Sum over k b(kx) so that -d/dx b(kx) = -k b(kx). In other words, conservation of energy exists at the level of each hit as well as for the overall average. To force all of these constraints, a solution of b(kx)=V(k) exp(ikx) emerges which introduces periodicity and complex numbers. It should be noted that V(x)= Sum V(k) exp(ikx) so each term is actually a “piece of potential energy”. Furthermore, we argue that V(x) is decomposed for physical reasons i.e. V(x) is a low resolution result which incorporates all of the “pieces”. In a quantum mechanical situation, a “piece” V(k)exp(ikx) may act at t1 and V(k2)exp(i k2x) at t2. We argue that exp(ikx) should have physical meaning and leads to sin(kx) terms for the “k” and “-k” pieces. Thus, there is forward and backward motion which “cancel” i.e. have nothing to do with V(x). For a particle, however, in this region, there may be forward and backward motion, both of which have kinetic energy which should not be part of the average kinetic energy at x. The various physical (resolved) pieces of the potential lead to momentum distribution at each x point with P(p/x)= a(p) exp(ipx)/ W(x) (W(x)=wavefunction). In this case, one has a probability, not “pieces” of KE(x). At first, one may be alarmed by complex probabilities, but they are necessary to allow for cancellation of kinetic energy pieces due to the positive/negative values combined V(k)exp(ikx) pieces. Thus, even though KE(x) (average) matches classical results, the actual motion is more complicated. The potential seems to be the driver of the ensemble picture and should be linked to the microscopic physical nature of the potential. In this note, we wish to examine features and consequences of such a stochastic potential, including the idea of tunneling and infinite potential walls.
We have argued in previous notes that both Newtonian mechanics and free particle quantum mechanics arise from special relativity. Thus, special relativity gives an expression for free particle energy and momentum and these are related to concepts of work. The Lorentz invariant -Et+px shows that x,t and x+hbar/p, t+hbar/E give the same solution to this potential-like term showing that there is stochasticity in the position and time delivery of interaction hits. In other words, even though the center-of-mass moves as x=vt, a momentum hit (proportional to rest mass mo) does not necessarily act at the center-of-mass. This gives the impression of shifts in probability, kinetic energy etc in the case of interference, i.e. interactions. For a single free particle, there is no interaction and -1/2m d/dx d/dx exp(ipx) = pp/2m exp(ipx). We argue that exp(ipx) is a probability and that in general one may add independent probabilities in an OR situation as in a 2-slit interference case. A bound state, however, is different because even though one adds weighted exp(ipx)s, they are part of a resonance or equilibrium and this is no longer an independent OR situation. We suggest that one uses a conditional probability when computing a Newtonian nonrelativistic conservation of energy equation to try to remove as much of the quantum features from this equation. As a result, one has: KEclassical(x) + V(x) = E = Sum over p pp/2m P(p/x) + V(x). One cannot bypass the fact that a quantum particle interacts differently from a classical one and that this involves a probabilistic granularity (wavelength), but classical notions of energy and energy conservation still exist. As a result, the bound state wavefunction Wn(x) = Sum over p an(p) exp(ipx) is not a usual OR sum, but is rather 1 over a normalization factor for an equilibrium picture. As a result, one cannot use Wn1(x)Wn2(x) = W(n1+n2) (x) as one would for independent probabilities. Furthermore, given that one has Wn(x) and Wn1(x)+Wn2(x) which are both of the form Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx), and both represent average energies, one needs a way to distinguish a resonance/equilibrium from a sum of resonance/equilibrium normalization factors. We suggest that the orthogonality of resonance Wn(x)’s provides this feature. The standard textbook explanation is based on Hermitian operators, but in the nonrelativistic case, we argue that one may obtain the result based on integration by parts based on the form of the p operator = -grad. Thus, it is ultimately the form exp(ipx) which leads to orthogonal bound state Wn(x)’s, together with the boundary condition that Wn(x)-->0 of x-> +infinite and -infinite.
In previous notes (1) we discussed the free particle classical action in the form A= -Et+px in which p,x and E and t are independent for the relative and nonrelativistic cases. This leads to a scenario in which one cannot follow a particle in time i.e. there does not exist an x(t) as in classical mechanics. Instead one may develop eigenvalue equations -i d/dx partial exp(iA) = p exp(iA) and id/dt partial exp(iA) = E exp(iA) for the free particle. The solution exp(-iEt+ipx) is similar to a classical wave (which is a different solution following form A=-Et+px) in that it describes a kind of probability resonance in all of space. If one introduces a potential V(x), this is localized and one needs to think in terms of impulse hit resonances like exp(ikx) creating V(x). In other words, both an ensemble of exp(ipx) representing the particle and V(x)=Sum over k Vk exp(ikx) are described in terms of this resonance type periodic probability which interferes to create local features. One might argue that this feature of V(x) drives the particle. In this note we wish to examine the coupled oscillator H= p1p1/2 + p2p2/2 + w1w1/2(x1x1+x2x2) + .5w2w2(x1-x2)(x1-x2) (with m=1). Transforming variables leads to an equation with a separable solution, but in y=x1+x2 and y1=x1-x2. In this note we try to examine this solution in terms of the above resonance picture and also suggest a possible overall Shannon’s entropy.
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.