In a previous note (1), we argued that W(x+dx)= W(x) exp(i dx ) where = - i d/dx lnW mimicking the behaviour of exp(ipx) for a free quantum particle. In this note, we consider that for the conditional probability P(p/x)= a(p) exp(ipx)/W(x), a shift from x to x+dx leads to: P(p/ x+dx) = P(p/x) exp(i dx (p- ) ) = P(p/x)(1+ idx (p- )). We note that in shifting from x to x+dx the overall sum of probability should not change, so P(p / x+dx)= P(p/x) + P(p/x) g(p,x). If one assumes that g(p,x) is a function of p alone, the simplest solution is p- . If one considers Sum over p pp/2m P(p/x+dx) = Sum over p pp/2m P(p/x) = delta KE ave then this should be equal to Force(x) dx. We also consider classical hydrodynamical equations and compare these with modified equations applying to the bound state quantum situation. The two sets of equations are very similar with density in the classical case being replaced with W(x)exp(-iEt), the wavefunction, and E energy or V(x) (potential) terms replaced with 2E or 2V (i.e. also 2Force). In a previous note, we had considered hydrodynamical equations with the restriction 2m=1 which is too strong. Here any m (mass) may be used.
In a previous note (1), we argued that W(x+dx)= W(x) exp(i dx ) where = - i d/dx lnW mimicking the behaviour of exp(ipx) for a free quantum particle. In this note, we consider that for the conditional probability P(p/x)= a(p) exp(ipx)/W(x), a shift from x to x+dx leads to: P(p/ x+dx) = P(p/x) exp(i dx (p- ) ) = P(p/x)(1+ idx (p- )). We note that in shifting from x to x+dx the overall sum of probability should not change, so P(p / x+dx)= P(p/x) + P(p/x) g(p,x). If one assumes that g(p,x) is a function of p alone, the simplest solution is p- . If one considers Sum over p pp/2m P(p/x+dx) = Sum over p pp/2m P(p/x) = delta KE ave then this should be equal to Force(x) dx. We also consider classical hydrodynamical equations and compare these with modified equations applying to the bound state quantum situation. The two sets of equations are very similar with density in the classical case being replaced with W(x)exp(-iEt), the wavefunction, and E energy or V(x) (potential) terms replaced with 2E or 2V (i.e. also 2Force). In a previous note, we had considered hydrodynamical equations with the restriction 2m=1 which is too strong. Here any m (mass) may be used.
There have been various derivations of the Schrodinger equation in the literature (e.g. (1)) based on hydrodynamics (continuity and conservation of momentum equations) with the added assumption that a velocity field u(x,t) = d/dx S(x,t) where S(x,t) is a new field. Furthermore a mathematical transformation Wv= sqrt(d(x,t)) exp(i S(x,t)) is used leading to the new function Wv(x). In (2) we compared the bound state Schrodinger scenario to the hydrodynamic equations in (1). In (1) d u(x,t)/dt = -dV/dx -dW/dx ((1)). V(x) is the usual potential and W(x) is described as a fluid stress potential. We also compared (1) to a free quantum particle and found that S(x,t) must contain a -Et piece if the hydrodynamical approach is to match quantum mechanics. In (1), ((1)) is shown to be equivalent to: d/dt partial S + ½ u(x,t)u(x,t) + W(x) + V(x) = 0 ((2)) with W being expressed in terms of spatial derivatives of density. d/dt partial S yields -E and u(x,t)=0 for a bound state so ((2)) is of the form of a conservation of energy equation. If a free quantum particle is described spatially by exp(ipx) then one may create a distribution Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) and calculate average kinetic energy [-1/2m Sum over p a(p)pp/2m exp(ipx)] / [Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx)] and set it equal to W(x) as done in (2). In this note, we wish to examine the idea of a free particle conditional probability exp(-iEt+ipx) and compare it to the Schrodinger bound state which itself may be considered a localized solution if one ignores the internal wavefunction and considers only the center of mass features exp(-i (masses +En) t + ipoverall x) where p(overall) =0. We argue that center of mass features are contained in the Schrodinger bound state solution if one integrates over x relative to cm, the x variable in the Schrodinger equation. The idea of time t only applies to the cm, there is no time in Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). Furthermore p(overall) =0 only if one integrates W(x) (-id/dx W) over all x (relative to cm). Also the form -i d/dx Wavefunction(free particle p) = p Wavefunction(free particle) where Conditional Prob= exp(-iEt+ipx) carries over to the bound state with: -i d/dx exp(ln(Wv)) ={ -i d/dx ln(Wv)} exp(ln(Wv)) where Wv=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). In other words there is an imaginary momentum -id/dx ln(Wv(x)) at each x in the bound solution so u(x,t)=0 holds for the real part. As a result, the hydrodynamical approach to quantum mechanics is not as straightforward as it may appear on the surface. We try to investigate a number of ideas related to the treatment of quantum bound states using hydrodynamics.
In previous notes, we suggested that quantum bound states may be analysed in terms of the conditional probability P(p/x)= a(p)exp(ipx)/W(x) (where W(x) is the wavefunction) which allows for the calculation of average kinetic energy at each point x i.e. [Sum over p pp/2m P(p/x)]/ W(x). This added to V(x) yields E (average energy) at each x and yields the time-independent Schrodinger equation). We argued that probability is handled at the level of W(x)=Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx). Measurements (even internal) may knock a particle from one p1 state to another so another set of probabilities (P(x) and P(p)) arise, P(x) being based on: a(p1)exp(i p1x) exp(i p2x). Averages of f(p,x) follow from P(x) f(p,x) P(p/x). Thus, there are two sets of probabilities in quantum mechanics. Entropic dynamics (1) appears to begin with the probability P(x) and considers a transition probability P(x1 |x) with x1-x= an infinitesimal quantity. A product of transition probabilities is then taken to allow for finite x1-x differences. It is stated in (1) that there exists information about x but not p. The maximization of entropy density may be used to determine the form of P(x1 | x). A “drift velocity” is also included (which is later shown to be related to the phase of the wavefunction). Ultimately, the Schrodinger equation is also obtained. We argue one may use P(p/x) to also calculate P(x1 | x) and compare this result with that obtained through the maximization of entropy density. A type of drift velocity appears naturally in this approach. We argue that the form a(p)exp(ipx) already incorporates statistical ideas (i.e. maximum entropy) in that the modulus of exp(ipx) is identical for all x, endowing all x points with a “kind” of equivalent status. exp(ipx) is a function of p and x because one must calculate average kinetic energy at each x and this must change with x i.e. KEave(x) + V(x) = E. Thus, we think there are strong similarities between entropic dynamics and the approach of using P(p/x). There are also some differences in that the coefficient A of delta(x)delta(x) in P(x1 | x) = 1/Z exp{ A delta(x)delta(x) + B d Phi/dx delta(x)} is treated as independent of x in entropic dynamics, but is a specific function of x (related to d ln(W)/dx d ln(W)/dx + 1/W d/dx d/dx W) in the P(p/x) approach.
In a classical bound state, conservation of energy: p(x)p(x)/2m + V(x) = E holds for all x. Examined in a statistical sense, one may consider each constant dx to have a probability density proportional to dt(x) where v(x)=velocity =dx/ dt(x). Thus the particle is followed in time. In quantum mechanics, even for a free particle exp(ipx), there exists a wavelength hbar/p. Within this region one cannot follow the particle in time. In fact, there are two probability distributions cos(px) and the shifted sin(px). The two dimensional nature of exp(ipx) is required to describe the direction of motion. There exists a mathematical abstraction or average which holds for any x within the wavelength and yields the classical x= p/m t. Thus there is a duality, but within a wavelength one cannot follow the particle exactly using x=p/m t. Rather there is no time and one thinks of probabilities to be at one x or another. The operator -id/dx yields the abstracted or average momentum at any x and (-id/dx)(-id/dx) average pp if one divides by probability. In other words: (-id/dx) exp(ipx)/ exp(ipx) = p and (-id/dx) (-id/dx) exp(ipx) / exp(ipx) = pp. These then apply to any x point. For a bound state, exp(ipx) is replaced with W(x)= Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). Thus p and -p are included together. From a statistical point of view this is fine because a quantum bound state is described in terms of energy conservation (time-independent Schrodinger equation). Unlike the classical case, the probabilities of p and -p differ, i.e. exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx). The sum exp(ipx)+exp(-ipx) yields cos(px) which is the resolution probability distribution. Taking -d/dx d/dx of W(x) and then dividing by W(x) yields the average kinetic energy at any x within the wavelength. In other words this is the average kinetic energy which matches the classical result for any energy level. As a result, prms(x)prms(x)/2m + V(x) = En holds for any quantum level, but prms(x) is an rms average value which bypasses wave structure. That is why the exp(ipx) for p,-p and -id/dx must be used to calculate average quantities within a wavelength. Many different p,-p combinations are needed so that at each x within a wavelength the correct average kinetic energy value appears. Now consider a high energy level and choose a fixed dx length to represent a tiny region in the system, a cutoff for which there is no further resolution. p(x) is constant within this region. If hbar/ prms(x) <= dx, the wave structure of quantum mechanics does not play a role. (Note that for an oscillator, W(x) is a set of crests and troughs with different heights and widths.) As a result, there is no need for d/dx acting on W(x) to describe average kinetic energy within dx. The average kinetic energy is prms(x)prms(x)/2m and dx is treated like a point. Only if exp(ipx) is used does -id/dx yield the proper classical result. (An alternative scenario is that d/dx acting on a function divided by the function yields the same result as acting on exp(ipx) divided by exp(ipx) e.g. -d/dx d/dx cos(px)/cos(px) = -d/dx d/dx exp(ipx) / exp(ipx). If one has the quantum kinetic energy expression -1/2m d/dx dW/dx / W ((1)) and considers one momentum, namely prms(x), and uses W(x)= cos( prms(x) x), then with prms(x) constant at x, ((1)) yields prms(x) prms(x)/ 2m. Thus d/dx has not broken down even though it does not describe motion within dx which is now a point. A problem arises, however, if one considers Wn(x)= Wn1(x)Wn2(x) as this yields an equation containing dW1/dx dW2/dx/ (W1W2). Then the above procedure yields: dW1/dx/W1 (prms(x) sin(prms(x) x) / cos(prms(x) x). This does not match the classical value. Furthermore, dW2/dx/ W2 contains +prms(x) and -prms(x) with different weights while a classical scenario is -pP(-p,x) + pP(p,x) = 0 because P(-p,x)=P(p,x) while quantum mechanically it doesn’t. We analyze this situation and conclude that d/dx breaks down/ does not apply in the classical limit because it is used to calculate average values within a wavelength only. It only “works” if the effect of the derivative(s) on a function divided by the function is the same as the effect on exp(ipx) divided by exp(ipx). If a wavelength fits within dx, there is no need to calculate values at any lower x level and d/dx is not needed. In fact, there is a single prms(x) value in dx and the average time links different dx’s so that one follows the particle (on average in the sense that one ignores structure within each x) by x(t). As a practical consequence, using -id/dx together with the wavefunction W(x) can lead to problems in the classical limit because d/dx does apply. In short, using -id/dx operating on Wn(x) divided by Wn(x) leads to issues unless it produces the same effect as acting on exp(ipx) divided by exp(ipx).
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.
In a quantum bound state,spatial density is given by W(x)W(x), where W(x) is the wavefunction, average momentum by -i d ln(W) /dx and average kinetic energy at x by -1/2m d/dx d/dx W / W. One may note that: -1/2m d/dx d/dx W / W + V(x) = E is the time independent Schrodinger equation which may be solved for W(x) and E without any concept of spatial density. Furthermore, one may calculate and <p*p>, also without any concept of spatial density. This differs from the case of a classical fluid situation for which there is no W(x). We argue that kinematics of a bound state are contained in W(x) and that the Schrodinger equation is like a probability conservation hydrodynamic equation with spatial density replaced with W(x) and a V(x)W(x) term which we try to explain. In addition, the “conservation of momentum” hydrodynamic equation is essentially “d/dx” of the Schrodinger equation (if mass=m=.5). This strategy differs from the general approach used throughout the literature (for example (1) and many other cases), where spatial density is taken as the starting point of a quantum hydrodynamic formalism. Spatial density is utilized in a continuity equation of the form d/dt [W*W] + d/dx [W*W v] = 0 where v is a collective velocity and d/dt the partial derivative with respect to time. We argue one only needs the concept of a wavefunction as the normalization constant of the conditional probability P(p/x)= a(p)exp(ipx) / W(x) i.e. W(x)= sum over p a(p) exp(ipx). From this wavefunction, one may calculate and <p*p>. Thus we argue that hydrodynamic type equations should apply to W(x). We pointed out in (2), that W(x) in fact satisfies a momentum continuity hydrodynamic equation if mass=.5.
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.