In Part I we suggested that free particle quantum mechanics seems to follow from special relativity. In this note, we focus on the idea of a rest frame defining a rest mass. In such a frame momentum is zero i.e. one has the 4-vector (0,mo)=(p,E). (x,t), however, is also a 4-vector which is usually assigned to a point in space time. In Part I, however, we considered (x,t)=(0,to) associating p=0 and x=0 and alternatively mo and to. Velocity is usually defined as dx/dt =v, but using the Lorentz transformation (1) (with v set to -v), (x,t)=(0,to) transforms to x’/t’ = v. The relationship between x,p and t,E is further manifested through the Lorentz invariant -Et+px in which E scales t and p, x. This we suggest breaks space into pieces proportional to 1/p and time (independently) into pieces proportional to 1/E We next consider particles “created” at different x points. In other words (0,mo) applies, but the particles are at different x positions. In order to keep the relationship p=0,x=0, one must have an x origin at all particle positions. Then spatial scaling of 1/p does not line up unless the particles are n/p (n=integer) apart. Otherwise the scaling in space is unaligned. For different p, scaling in space is unaligned already with (0,mo) and (0, to). Thus for two particles with the same p, but created at different x values at different times and arriving at x1, t1, if there is no alignment, special relativity suggests these two are distinguishable, while Newtonian mechanics does not distinguish. This distinguishability, however, depends on a physical mechanism i.e. a wavelength. Thus, even without considering different p (momentum) values, two identical momenta should be distinguishable if they are not aligned in terms of p scaling even for the same rest mass mo. This we argue is strictly a result of special relativity and is support for the exp(ipx) form of quantum free particle mechanics.
In Part I we suggested that free particle quantum mechanics seems to follow from special relativity. In this note, we focus on the idea of a rest frame defining a rest mass. In such a frame momentum is zero i.e. one has the 4-vector (0,mo)=(p,E). (x,t), however, is also a 4-vector which is usually assigned to a point in space time. In Part I, however, we considered (x,t)=(0,to) associating p=0 and x=0 and alternatively mo and to. Velocity is usually defined as dx/dt =v, but using the Lorentz transformation (1) (with v set to -v), (x,t)=(0,to) transforms to x’/t’ = v. The relationship between x,p and t,E is further manifested through the Lorentz invariant -Et+px in which E scales t and p, x. This we suggest breaks space into pieces proportional to 1/p and time (independently) into pieces proportional to 1/E We next consider particles “created” at different x points. In other words (0,mo) applies, but the particles are at different x positions. In order to keep the relationship p=0,x=0, one must have an x origin at all particle positions. Then spatial scaling of 1/p does not line up unless the particles are n/p (n=integer) apart. Otherwise the scaling in space is unaligned. For different p, scaling in space is unaligned already with (0,mo) and (0, to). Thus for two particles with the same p, but created at different x values at different times and arriving at x1, t1, if there is no alignment, special relativity suggests these two are distinguishable, while Newtonian mechanics does not distinguish. This distinguishability, however, depends on a physical mechanism i.e. a wavelength. Thus, even without considering different p (momentum) values, two identical momenta should be distinguishable if they are not aligned in terms of p scaling even for the same rest mass mo. This we argue is strictly a result of special relativity and is support for the exp(ipx) form of quantum free particle mechanics.
In a previous note (1) we considered a rest mass mo at x=0 and t=to and argued this transforms to E’, p’ with x’/t’=v. Thus a single system may be Lorentz transformed to create particles with mo and all velocities. We suggested that all of these particles are on the same footing in a sense. In this note we try to investigate what this “footing” is. In particular, we suggest nonlocality. A particle with rest mass mo, likely occupies some region of space, but is treated as a point (i.e. x=0) which may be the center of mass.The idea of a particle considered as a point is carried over into special relativity i.e motion. In Newtonian mechanics the particle is also considered to be a point. We argue that even though a particle “system” with mo at x=0 and t=to is a point and that after moving there may still be an x’/t’ = v pertaining to one point representing the system, the localization of mo at x=0 may be transformed into a localization in every constant moving frame. This localization seems to be linked to the idea of x and t being independent in -Et+px just as a particle at x=0 and t=to at rest treats x and t as independent. Thus we argue that the localization is the “same footing” of particles with different v and hence momenta mov. The dot product -Et+px = A is -moto for the rest frame which tends to 0 for to→0 . For any frame, t=b/E and x=b/p yields the same A=0. Furthermore x=b/p and t=b/E is a recipe which holds in all frames and describes nonlocality or a “trapped” length associated with the moving particle. This trapped length is not associated with time because x and t are independent. In other words the system moves with a speed of v=x’/t’, but the particle is “trapped” within a wavelength of the order 1/p in the sense that there is a cycling probability as the particle moves through space ignoring time. One does not simply have a point at rest transformed into a point in motion describing all aspects of the moving particle. If one considers x=0 and x=1/p, particles with different p values may follow the same probability distribution associated with energy flow in the region of one wavelength. If one ignores the motion v=x’/t’, then since time is ignored it is as if one has a particle with different probabilities to be at different x points. In a bound quantum state, time is physically dropped and these probabilities are linked to actual densities. For a moving particle (in one direction) one must consider the point motion v=x’/t’, but also kind of periodic trapping of the particle in space (not linked to time). In order to quantify this for a quantum free particle, one may consider the idea of a particle system with a length proportional to 1/p which is consistent with P(x)=constant. In particular, one may take the square root of 1 so to speak to obtain exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx). This also follows from eigenvalue equations of A= -Et+px i.e. -id/dx exp(ipx) = p exp(ipx). It should be noted (as stated above) that exp(ipx) does not involve time. Thus the trapping is in space and may occur over a long period of time if the velocity is very slow i.e. 1/p is very large. In a sense the particle is trapped in a kind of periodic motion in space. There is locality in the sense of position x’/t’=v, but not in the sense of the trapped periodic motion. The nonlocality seems to exist one opposite scales than the usual point velocity. For example, if a particle has a very small velocity then x’/t’=v→0 i.e. one thinks in terms of a very small x’, but 1/p is very large.
The classical action (relativistic or nonrelativistic) may be written with v=x/t and x and t varied independently to yield dA/dx partial = p and dA/dt partial = -E. Thus A = -Et+px is a solution. This expression also appears in classical wave forms and in the electromagnetic description of a photon (from Maxwell’s laws). -Et+px is a Lorentz invariant and so is directly linked to special relativity and different frames moving with constant velocity. In (1) we argued that x and t should be treated as independent in A. This suggests that p is a scaling in space and E in time. Thus there should be physical lengths proportional to 1/p and physical time intervals proportional to 1/E. Special relativity considers different frames (moving with constant velocity) and 4-vectors so it seems to be quite different from a scenario with t and x separated and scaling of x by p. We argue that although -Et+px is a Lorentz invariant and as such may be used to find E(v) and p(v), quantum mechanics is usually performed in a special frame, namey one in which V(x) or V(x,v) the potential is at rest. (For electromagnetism one treats (A, phi) as a 4-vector, but this is not the norm.) As a result, energy En found in a rest frame of the potential also represents “rest energy” so En is binding energy which is added to rest mass energy. In other words motion in the rest frame of a potential creates rest energy = rest mass. We argue that V(x) may be written as a sum over k Vk exp(ikx) and so no time related terms appear, only momentum linked ones. Thus momentum is the key feature for the interaction, even though velocity and time are still in the picture (just sometimes not directly in the interaction scheme). For example, a two slit interference or single slit diffraction does not depend on time or speed although these are certainly in the problem. For a bound state v and t are also in the problem as one calculates average kinetic energy using pp/2m = .5 p v which is rate dependent, but there is no acceleration which is a time-dependent phenomenon. Rather one deals with an ensemble of exp(ipx)’s because these interact with the potential in a wavelike manner to create the effect of acceleration. exp(ipx) a momentum wave linked to the scaling of x by p in px is not only involved in an interaction with V(x), but represents extra information from the classical mechanical picture. exp(ipx) for a known rest mass mo means one knows v=x/t=dx/dt, yet there is an extra piece of information namely the phase px which is involved in even “free” interactions such as two idendical particle with different phases arriving at the same x at the same t or the average kinetic energy in a bound state. Velocity v is converted into a momentum expression through p/mo in the norelativistic case and so exp(ipx) governs the whole scenario. Acceleration then becomes a mathematical abstraction of the motion of vrms(x) for any quantum bound energy level with the real physics associated with exp(ipx) being ignored.
Classical mechanics of a free particle is based on Newtonian mechanics and Lagrangian/Hamilton theories. A single frame of reference is chosen (the lab) and particles with the same mass mo (for example) moving at different velocities are considered in the free particle scenario (i.e in the absence of force (potentials)). We argue that the above is identical to considering a single particle with mass mo at time=to and x=0 viewed by various frames moving at different constant velocities -v. From the point of view of each frame, the particle moves at a velocity v. Thus the Newtonian picture of an mo particle moving at different speeds may be considered as a problem of special relativity. We argue (as in (1)) that (x,t)=(0,t) transforms to (x’,t’) such that x’/t’=v. If one uses a metric (1 0) (first row) (0 -1) second row, one may derive special relativistic relationships. In particular, one may obtain the Lorentz invariant -Et + px if (p,E) and (x,t) transform in the same manner. We argue that the relationships obtained from special relativity pertain to classical mechanics and so one may mathematically obtain a function L(v) such that p=dL/dv and E=pv - L for a free particle. In other words, special relativity governs Lagrangian results in the free particle case and is not really needed (in this special case). More importantly, it is special relativity which links E with t and p with x. As noted above, if one considers Netwonian mechanics in a single frame, the notion of special relativity does not arise, but the scaling of time by E and of x by p does i.e. A= -Et+px is the classical action both relativistically and nonrelativistically. It is just not written in this way usually (i.e. A = -mo t sqrt(1-vv) (c=1) relatiivstically and A =t .5mo vv nonrelativistically) We argued in (2) that scaling must manifest itself physically and that it accounts for the physical wavelength in quantum mechanics. We argue that the quantum mechanics of a free particle ultimately follows from special relativity. As a result, ideas of quantum mechanics would not have appeared in Newtonian mechanics nor Lagrangian or Hamiltonian theories. When special relativity was developed it focused on transformations related to different frames, but these are equivalent to describing one frame with many different velocities (same mo). Thus the physics in one frame is governed by special relativity even if it is nonrelativistic. We argue that the notion of the wavelength which appears even in the Schrodinger formalism follows from scaling of x by p which ultimately originates from special relativity. In other words, both the Lagrangian formalism and quantum mechanics follow from special relativity in the free particle case. We argue that free particle quantum mechanics is the starting point of overall quantum mechanics.
Momentum and velocity are two well-known physical observables in classical physics (and quantum physics as well because quantum particles have impulse and move through space in a certain amount of time based on an external clock and ruler). They are, however, measured in different ways. Velocity describes motion through x in some time t, while p is measured through impulses. Thus one does not need a clock to measure momentum. It may be measured in terms of the damage done to a foil, compression of a spring etc. Thus p=m1v1=m2v2 etc., i.e. a numerical number associated with momentum does not automatically yield the velocity unless one knows rest mass. In many situations rest mass is known (i.e. one deals with an electron etc) and so there seems to be a tendency to consider momentum and velocity to be almost the same thing when they are distinctly different. In fact, we argue that the notion of wavefunction W(x) and density P(x)=W*(x)W(x) are associated with momentum and velocity respectively. In fact, for a free particle these two measurables are linked with completely different spatial probabilities. Constant velocity impies P(x)=constant while exp(ipx) describes the two-dimensional x-probability associated with p which is based on a constant mo and v. In special relativity for a free particle (i.e. p constant, v constant), there are two well known Lorentz invariants: EE = pp + momo (c=1) and A = -Et + px. One may note that v does not appear explicitly even though one may write E and p in terms of v i.e. E = mo/sqrt(1-vv) and p=Ev. The first invariant describes E in terms of rest mass and p (measured through impulse). The second involves p,E and x,t with x and t appearing as independent even though ultimately x(t) and v=dx/dt=constant = x/t if x and t both start at 0. This independence is crucial because it means one may consider fluctuations which keep A constant separately. For example, if t→ t+ hbar/E and x→ x+hbar/p, then A remains constant. This leads to the idea of the quantum wavelength and a spatial probability independent of t, namely exp(ipx). One average, however, x=vt, but how does this appear in Lorentz invariants? There is no explicit v. We argue that the Lorentz invariant A = -Et + px must convert E from a function of p to one in v and that this occurs through a Legendre transformation. Thus the form of the invariant is itself a Legendre transformation with E being transformed into L, the Lagrangian. There is, however, a second important feature because p=dL/dv (partial) and given that p is constant, dp/dt=0 so d/dt dL/dv partial =0 which is in the form of an extremization. We argue that this is not an accident. dL/dv=p follows from E being constant, so, in other words, it follows from the px term. This same term leads to exp(ipx) which means that one does not have smooth x=vt motion within a wavelength. Thus, we argue that when one transforms to the second measurable v, the notion of this fluctuation behaviour must also be manifested. In other words, v=constant or dv/dt is not enough. The extremization behaviour of the Lagrangian, we argue, is thus not a mathematical convenience, but gives an indication that even though the extreme path x=vt is followed on average, other paths are sampled. We argue that this idea is incorporated into special relativity, in fact within a single Lorentz invariant A = -Et + px.
Special relativity seems to be associated with linking physical relations as seen in one frame with those as seen in a frame moving at a speed relative to such a frame. A constant speed is often used for the moving frame. This suggests that classically there is a special frame for a particle with rest mass called a rest frame. In such a case, one simply introduces a parameter for rest mass and does not worry about the complicated motion and interactions which actually create the rest mass. It seems that even quantum mechanics, which considers a particle to be moving as one does not know its location, one uses the idea of a potential V(x) which in principle is associated with a very large rest mass, presumably at rest as no variables of such a rest mass appear in the Klein-Gordon or Dirac equations. It seems that one uses a preferred frame when solving relativistic quantum mechanical equations. Furthermore, given V(x) and a bound state with exp(-i E bound t), E applies to the overall bound system, not to a possible exp(ipx) constituent. The special relativistic invariant equation seems to exist at the system level, like with the rest mass and one may apparently calculate E in the special rest frame of the large mass and hence find a rest mass of the bound system, i..e large rest mass*cc + mo cc + E, mo is the rest mass of the single bound particle. As a result of the use of the special rest mass frame for the V(x) producing large rest mass, it seems that one does not have to worry about special relativistic constraints on the interaction with V(x), as only one frame is involved. In other words, a bound calculation is about finding a new rest mass for an overall new system. Then this system may be used in Lorentz boosts. One simplifies by working in the rest frame of the mass creating V(x). Perhaps surprisingly then, we note that exp(-iEt+ipx) for a free particle is Lorentz invariant and in fact must be Lorentz invariant for the following reason. Imagine that one wishes to create a probability for free particles which is linked with conservation of momentum. Any p must have the same real value weight because for free particles there is no bias for one p or the other. There is, however, a bias for a p1 and p2. It should have the same probability as a p3 and p4, if p1+p2 = p3+p4. (We use one dimension for simplicity.) As a result, exp(ip) seems to be a probability which respects these conditions. The problem is that one may have p=m1v1=m2v2 hence (E1,p) and (E2,p). With respect to momentum, it is irrelevant if one particle has E1 and the other E2, but not if one does a Lorentz boost. Then, in one case: p→ g(v) p + g(v) v E1 and in the second, p→ g(v) p + g(v)vE2. Here g(v) =1/sqrt(1-vv/cc). In other words, p is the same for each particle in one frame and not in the other which violates conservation of momentum because in frame 1 both particles can complete the same conservation of momentum equation, but in the second frame this is not the case, because each has a different momentum. Thus, exp(ip) cannot hold. One requires a linear form in p which is Lorentz invariant, i.e. exp(-iEt+ipx), we argue (and have done so in previous notes). We see now that momentum probability is linked with space in exp(ipx). The idea seems to be that for free colliding particles there is no preferred frame and the probabilities used must reflect this Lorentz invariance. As a result, we argue that a free particle probability in E,p arises because of Lorentz invariance, but then apply it to a V(x) problem and no longer worry about Lorentz invariance at the interaction level. V(x) with no associated rest mass variables assumes a rest frame for the V(x) producing mass. A Lorentz boost which then invalidates exp(ip), would only apply to the total rest mass of the bound particle system which has no overall momentum. It seems that one does apply the Lorentz transformation to the interaction of exp(ipx)’s with V(x). One is only interested in the overall bound system as a single entity for special relativity. As a result, one may only impose momentum considerations as V(x) is a spatial function and one must link it with exp(ipx). In fact, one may write V(x) = Sum over k Vk exp(ikx) to associate it with momentum hits linked with Vk energies, which already moves away from the idea of special relativity as Vk and k are not linked as a 4-vector. The idea of exp(ip1x)exp(i k1x) = exp(ip2x)exp(ik2x), however, seems to still hold (as it does for free particles), linking these two values (i.e. Vk1 and Vk2) with (p1+k)(p1+k) exp(i (p1+k)x). Lorentz invariance for a particle with rest mass seems to be linked with the idea that one ultimately has a rest frame for the particle. One then establishes a relation between the rest mass in one frame and its new E and p as seen by another frame. One does not, however, need to impose Lorentz invariance conditions on the interaction which creates the rest mass it seems. For example, exp(-iEt+ipx) is the Lorentz form used to describe a free particle, but exp(ipx) is the only portion used to describe its interaction with V(x) in the rest frame of the large mass creating V(x). Furthermore, exp(-iEt+ipx) ensures conservation of energy and p for a free particle, but in an interaction case, that does not happen as the potential may absorb energy.
We have argued in Parts 1 and 2, that the free particle quantum form exp(-iEt+ipx), which we call a complex probability, arises from special relativity in order to allow for conservation of energy and momentum (in an elastic collision). One may see from single particle bound states how exp(-iEt) plays the part of a binding energy. We have noted in Parts 1 and 2, that exp(-iEt+ipx) follows from the Lorentz invariant -Et+px, but that one does not consider the deterministic x=vt equation which applies to the center-of-mass, but rather treats t and x as independent variables which force the independence of E and p (two different interaction variables) and also force separate E and p conservation. The question becomes: How is it possible to have x,t play two such different roles in special relativity? Here we try to answer this question. We argue that special relativity is based on determinism, i.e. x=vt. One may create a Lorentz transformation for a particle with rest mass mo at x=0 with t, a running variable. As seen from a frame moving with -v, one has x’=vt’. In other words, a separate x’,t’ is associated with each v. In Newtonian mechanics, it is possible to have mov1 and mov2 in the same frame (i.e. a frame with a ruler and clock), but in special relativity, each mo in the rest frame maps to a different x1’,t’ and x2’,t2’. This, however, seems to lead to a contradiction. If one considers two particles p1,E1 and p2,E2 (one dimensional motion) which elastically collide, then before the collision, they may be thought of as a composite particle (for more than a single x,t point) with energy E1+E2 and momentum p1+p2. Given the validity of special relativity, we argue that one may associate a Lorentz invariant -(E1+E2)t + (p1+p2) x with this composite particle. Furthermore, any outcome Ei+Ej = E1+E2 and pi+pj = p1+p2 would satisfy this same invariant. At this point there is no contradiction. The contradiction arises if one considers a single t and x for a composite particle, while internally there exist t1’,x1’ and t2’, x2’. The composite particle, in terms of special relativity, is not compatible with each -E’t’+p’x. The energies and momenta, however, add for each particle (in conservation equations) and so we argue that one should have a relativistically compatible approach which allows one to link each particle to a composite particle and see conservation of E and p. We note that it is precisely x=vt for each particle which leads to x1’,t1’ and x2’,t2’ and so argue that if one gives up this notion of determinism for x and t and introduces independent x, t values (fluctuations), then one can indeed retain the -Et+px form for each particle and use it to create composite particles. This seems to give rise to an AND situation which does not exist for both p,x and E,t in the deterministic relativistic approach. In that approach, one can only think of p’s and E’s adding separately, without any linking of x’s and t’s. In the fluctuation approach, it is possible to have the same x and t fluctuation points for each particle. We argue that it is this kind of thinking which leads to the probabilistic form exp(-iEt+ipx) which still respects the Lorentz invariant form and at the same time allows for conservation of E,p with the same t,x fluctuation points allowed. x=vt does not allow one to combine x1’,t1’ and x2’,t2’ for a composite particle because these may coincide for only one x,t point and one wishes to describe a composite particle with an x,t which exists over more than one x,t. This is why we suggest the physical fluctuation scenario which exists together with x=vt. x=vt describes the deterministic motion of the center-of-mass, while exp(-iEt+ipx) describes probabilistic hits in x and energy in t. It is special relativity which forces one to associate time fluctuations with E and spatial ones with p. As a result, we argue that special relativity gives rise to both probabilistic and deterministic versions, both of which respect the form -Et+px. The deterministic version is linked with x=vt center-of-mass motion, while exp(-iEt+ipx) represents probabilistic appearances of E in t and p in x, i.e. there is a spatial probability for impulse hit delivery.