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 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.
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.
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).
The classical Lagrangian L leads to Newton’s second law which is equivalent to an energy-momentum conservation equation. The classical action: A = Integral dt1 L(t1) for a constant velocity v=X/T may be varied with respect X and T i.e dA/dT = -E and dA/dX= p. Thus, one may create a differential equation in (dA/dT)(dA/dt) and dA/dx dA/dx for the EE=pp+momo equation. Alternatively, one may create other differential equations. Quantum mechanical differential equations, however, are quite different with exp(i Action) being a solution. Even this may be written as the solution of a non-Schrodinger equation i.e. id/dt exp(iAction) = -1/2m (d/dx exp(iAction)) (d/dx exp(iAction)) for a free particle. For a constant velocity, exp(iAction) is equivalent to exp(ipx-iEt). We argue that this solution is statistical because it separates x and t (as independent variables) and holds for all x and t. Thus, quantum mechanics seems to be a statistical approach using free solutions exp(ipx-iEt) to create an ensemble as in classical statistical mechanics. A difference, however, is that exp(ipx-iEt) “interferes” even if one only takes the real part cos(px-Et). We consider the case of a particle in a box with infinite potential walls to argue that the periodicity is warranted i.e. positive and negative values (interference). Even though the modulus is 1, exp(ipx-iEt) may be operated on by various generators e.g. d/dx the generator of translations. This is analogous to operations on vectors in linear algebra. As noted above, quantum equations are not only energy-momentum conservation equations. They yield a wavefunction W(x) which is an unusual momentum distribution W(x)=Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx). exp(-iEt) holds overall because average E is the same at each x. Thus, one needs a W(x) which leads to a momentum-energy conservation equation, but also satisfies certain boundary conditions which become linked to spatial density= W*W. This leads to discrete energy levels and also cases of humps and troughs in W(x). We attempt to investigate some of these ideas in this note.
Interference between exp(ipx) momentum eigenstates in W(x)=wavefunction= Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) or bound eigenstates in W(x,t)=Sum an(En)exp(-iEnt) Wn(x) are well known in quantum mechanics. The resulting interference (seen in W*(x,t)W(x,t)) seems to be the effect of an OR probability condition i.e. adding complex probabilities with both the real and imaginary terms being periodic and containing both positive and negative values. (Here the wavefunction is treated as a kind of probability (i.e. a conditional probability.) In this note, we wish to argue that interference does not always occur. In particular, a free particle has a wavefunction of exp(-iE(p)t) exp(ipx where E=pp/2m, but only exp(ipx) terms interfere in W(x)=Sum a(p)exp(ipx). exp(-iE(p)t) terms do not interfere, rather a new time cycling resonance is created described by an overall exp(-iEt) where E represents overall energy (kinetic and potential). In other words it seems that a new kind of energy is created namely potential energy which must be considered together with kinetic energy. A particle in a bound state, treated as a free particle for statistical purposes, maintains a kind of identity and energy flow independent of the potential. Its energy identity, however, described by exp(-iE(p)t) where E(p)=pp/2m is transformed as it now interacts with exp(ikx) terms of V(x) to contribute to an overall new cycling resonance of exp(-iEt). Thus, exp(iE(p)t) terms do not interfere. For a linear combination of bound states (e.g. in a kind of heat reservoir) W(x,t)= Sum over n an(En)exp(-iEnt) Wn(x) and a new cycling resonance is not created, rather the reservoir kicks one n state to another and exp(-iEnt) terms interfere. Interference gives rise to the humps or troughs found in the original exp(ipx) or exp(-iEnt), but no longer yields a modulus of 1 at each x or t point. Thus interference shows the nonlocality in the problem. exp(ipx) on the other hand contains both locality and nonlocality. There is a wavelength proportional to 1/p and cos(px) and sin(px) are both nonlocal, but the modulus of exp(ipx) is 1 which is a local property. Quantum mechanics allows both for interference which yields nonlocality and noninterference, e.g. exp(-iEnt) which contains both locality and nonlocality. We investigate this idea in this note.
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 1, we noted that W*(x)W(x) represents the average number of interaction hits at x for an equilibrium (p, -p) scenario. This follows from exp(ipx) representing the probability for a p hit at x. If -p is also present with the same weight, then exp(ipx)+exp(-ipx) is proportional to cos(px), showing that some x points have low or no probability for a p hit. We argued, however, that these hit points are not at the center-of-mass so the center-of-mass could be at a 0 point. More importantly, average kinetic energy exists at these low or no hit points. In this note, we wish to examine the average kinetic energy more closely. It is built upon both classical Newtonian (nonrelativistic) ideas and the notion of a probabilistic x point for p hits, given by the probability exp(ipx). We note that both x and V(x) are continuous, but suggest that a probabilistic picture is compatible with non-continuous impulse hits. In particular, lengths are of the order of 10 power -10 m (atomic) or 10 power -15 m (nuclear) and particle speeds, on the order of 10 power 7 m/s. This suggests that V(x) and exp(ipx) are associated with ensembles. In the classical case with very slow speeds and large lengths compared to the above numbers, a tiny dx seems to represent an ensemble. Each dx represents an average result p(x)p(x)/2m + V(x) = E. In the quantum case, one needs to use an average based on exp(ipx) (as argued in Part 1) because pp/2m is seen to exist and change at an interaction point. Thus, {Sum over p a(p)pp/2m exp(ipx) }/{Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx)} represents an average KE at an x interaction point which may be linked to the V(x) at this same point. One must have kinetic energy at an interaction point for it to be compatible with V(x)