In a previous note (1), we argued that in quantum bound states, the classical potential V(x) is really an average i.e. equal to Sum over k V(k) exp(ikx). Mathematically, this is the well-known Fourier series, but in this note we try to argue there are important physical implications which lead to the hump like densities in numerous cases in quantum mechanics, unlike what is found in the classical case. In addition, we argue that the stochastic potential creates a momentum distribution at x which may be used to calculate average kinetic energy (at x). Because average kinetic energy changes with x, the momentum distribution must also change. At a given x, summing P(p/x) accounts for all possible momentum states and yields W(x), the wavefunction. Because this differs with x, the probability P(x) must differ with x as well, yielding a quantum density not seen in classical physics. Thus, quantum bound state density is due to the spatial change in momentum distribution probabilities with x, we argue.
In a previous note (1), we argued that in quantum bound states, the classical potential V(x) is really an average i.e. equal to Sum over k V(k) exp(ikx). Mathematically, this is the well-known Fourier series, but in this note we try to argue there are important physical implications which lead to the hump like densities in numerous cases in quantum mechanics, unlike what is found in the classical case. In addition, we argue that the stochastic potential creates a momentum distribution at x which may be used to calculate average kinetic energy (at x). Because average kinetic energy changes with x, the momentum distribution must also change. At a given x, summing P(p/x) accounts for all possible momentum states and yields W(x), the wavefunction. Because this differs with x, the probability P(x) must differ with x as well, yielding a quantum density not seen in classical physics. Thus, quantum bound state density is due to the spatial change in momentum distribution probabilities with x, we argue.
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.
In classical physics, there is a potential V(r) for a conservative force and force is linked to changes in momentum through Newton’s second law. For the sake of argument, imagine one may write V(r) as a Fourier series i.e. Sum over k Vk exp(ikx) and attribute physical relevance to this series. In other words, V(r) is a kind of average of microscopic granular system in which each exp(ikx) can impart momentum on a quantum particle. In addition, the Fourier series seems to have the appearance of a vector with exp(ikx) as a basis. It may also be noted that exp(ikx)exp(ipx) = exp(i (k+p)x). Thus, the potential seems to consist of ‘particles’ represented by exp(ikx) which may merge with quantum particles represented by exp(ipx) to form a boosted quantum particle exp(i (p+k)x). At first, it may seem exp(i (p+k)x) represents increased kinetic energy, but actually this merge should create potential energy. This perhaps gives a microscopic picture of potential energy. Thus, a merge of a Fourier series of V(x) with an ensemble of quantum particles Sum over p fp exp(ipx) yields: V(x) Sum over p fp exp(ipx) ((1)) A point which arises, however, is that Sum over p fp exp(ipx) cannot represent physical density because it may be negative at certain x . Thus, ((1)) is a departure from classical physics in which the potential energy is V(x) for one particle or V(x) density(x). ((1)) represents a kind of potential energy interaction, but introduces a new ensemble object Sum over p fp exp(ipx) which does not seem to exist in classical physics. This ensemble also seems to be a vector. The objective of this note is to try to determine properties and conditions which arise from this merge. In particular, we wish to find an equation satisfied by W(x) and also see how the classical picture is linked to this alternative scenario.
Historically, thermodynamics was formulated for macroscopic systems followed by the development of statistical mechanics which provided microscopic formulations for quantities such as entropy. Entropy is traditionally linked to the ln of the number states available or to the Shannon’s form -k Sum over i P(ei) ln(P(ei)) where P(ei) is the probability for the quantity ei. In addition a variable T (linked to average kinetic energy) appears in both theories. Later the Schrodinger equation was developed to describe bound electron states in an atom etc. These states were characterized by a math object W(x) called the wavefunction and a set of discrete energy levels was calculated which matched data of emitted photons. In a previous note (1) we argued that the average energy En for a quantum bound state plays the same role of characterizing equilibrium as T in classical thermodynamics/statistical mechanics. We further argued that En is linked to parameters in the system. For example, for a particle in a box with infinite potential walls, En is linked to L as well as to n the energy level. One may change En by either changing n or L separately (or both). Holding L constant and changing n leads to a certain type of energy change. We argue this is similar to holding the volume of a gas constant and increasing T. Alternatively, one may leave n unchanged (a quantum adiabatic process) and change L i.e. a mechanical change or work. We argue that one may already consider the concept of the first law of thermodynamics at the quantum bound state level i.e. dE = dQ - dWork where Work is linked to a change in a physical parameter, such as L the length of the box, whereas dQ is linked to energy changes not involving a physical parameter e.g. a change in n the energy level. The Schrodinger equation yields solutions for W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) the wavefunction as well as En’s. We have argued in previous notes that W(x) is part of a conditional probability P(p/x)= a(p)exp(ipx)/W(x) and that En is constant at each point x just as T is constant at each x for classical statistical equilibrium (1). Thus a kind of statistical mechanics exists at the wavefunction level we argue. This statistical mechanics makes use of a free particle wavefunction exp(ipx) and weights a(p), but does not contain the usual P(x), P(p) picture of the classical world. We have shown in (2) that one may obtain P(x)=W*(x)W(x) and P(p)=a*(p)a(p) from the conditional probability. The essential physics we argue, however, is at the level of the wavefunction together with its own unique statistical scenario of exp(ipx)’s interacting with exp(ikx)’s from V(x)=Sum over Vkexp(ikx) (see (1)). Given that P(x) and P(p) exist for a quantum bound state, it may be convenient to use them in formulas because they are linked to a classical statistical picture. We argue that one may use P(x) and P(p) to construct an object S such that T dS does not change when one changes L, the size of box with infinite potential walls. We argue that such an object follows from properties of the Schrodinger equation together with various assumptions. We arrive at S=Sp+Sx where Sp=-k Integral dp a(p)a(p) ln{|a(p)a(p)}| and Sx= -k Integral dx W(x)W(x) ln(W(x)W(x)) for a given energy level. We do not use arguments related to taking ln of the number of states present or Shannon’s entropy. Rather we look for a solution which does not depend on L and is additive. We note, however, that for both W(x)W(x) and a(p)a(p) the solution found is mathematically consistent with the entropy form found by considering independent probabilities. This, however, applies to P(x) and P(p), but we argue that the physical situation is based on W(x) and a(p) as solutions of the Schrodinger equation. Nevertheless P(x) and P(p) are physical observables and not simply math constructs and so may think of them in a somewhat classical manner in terms of probability. Thus we argue that thermodynamics is already present at the level of a quantum bound state and that one may obtain Shannon’s entropy at this level using P(x) and P(p), but without considering the overall probability of independent probabilities as in information theory or numbers of states. Rather obtaining a function which is additive in Sp and Sx and eliminates L is the main consideration. We also argue that S=Sp+Sx carries over into mixed quantum state wavefunctions even though it is usually ignored. Thus we try to argue that it is the bound quantum state which gives rise to the notion of thermodynamics and entropy.
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.
We argue that in a quantum bound state with one particle, the particle receives stochastic hits from a potential. As a result, if one examines a point x, the particle may be present at ti with momentum pi (in both the forward and backward directions) leading to a momentum distribution with a conditional probability P(p/x) = a(p) exp(ipx)/W(x) where W(x) is the wavefunction. Thus, one does not follow a stochastic particle in time, but rather describes it by a probability distribution at each x. One may next ask whether this conditional probability at x changes in time? This is not the actual time related to stochastic motion of the particle. To answer this question, we argue one must consider interactions which occur at x which are part of an energy equation. Even in classical physics, the energy equation at x indicates how a particle’s motion changes. Thus, we argue one does not simply take measurements at x of ti and pi, but that at each ti, a particle with pi is undergoing dynamic changes and these may be considered as well. If one describes the quantum picture by W(x) i.e. a momentum distribution, one may find a collective interaction given by -1/2m d/dx d/dx W + VW. The coupling between V(x)=Sum over k V(x)exp(ikx) and the particle conditional probabilities in W is apparent in the VW term. This energy term should describe whether the momentum distribution changes in time i.e should be proportional to dW/dt (partial derivative), but should also equal the average energy. Thus, a link exists between ensemble energy and time. In this note, we argue that these ideas may be applied to P(p/x) in a bound state resonance because the same E applies to each p.
A quantum single particle bound state involves a single particle, like a classical bound state, but it also involves spatial densities like a Maxwell-Boltzmann gas. For instance, a single particle has potential energy V(x) at x, while a density(x) has potential energy V(x) density(x). As a result, there seems to be a dichotomy. How does one solve the problem of single particle bound state? Does one use the concept of a single particle or of a density(x)? We argue that one focuses on a single particle, but with an added piece of physics. In classical physics, a particle with constant momentum (speed) moves in a deterministic way described by x=vt. On average, a quantum single particle creates its own ruler gradation and a sense of a direction in space through exp(ipx) which maps to 1 via exp(-ipx) exp(ipx). A single quantum bound particle which gives the semblance of an entity moving in a straight line back and forth (in a distance of the same order of hbar/p ) needs to create a semblance of acceleration as an average single particle. As a result, one may think of an ensemble i.e. W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). The difference with a free particle is that one has interference (+p’s and -p’s) which readily display a spatial W(x) which may ultimately be linked to a spatial density through W*(x)W(x). Thus, one now has the idea of spatial density which exists in a Maxwell-Boltzmann gas, This, however, is a consequence of the single particle approach. We argue that the single particle viewpoint leads to the spatial density one and not vice versa because of the way KE(x)+V(x) = E is treated. If one writes V(x)= Sum over k Vk exp(ikx), one does not write: KE(x) = Sum over k bk exp(ikx). We argue the reason is that such a KE(x) is not normalized so as to create the sense of a single particle. We argue that such a normalization leads to: KE(x) = {Sum over p a(p)pp/2m exp(ipx)} / W(x) meaning that on average one has a moving entity. V(x), on the other hand, is not a moving entity.