In a previous note (1) we argued that the notion of a quantum wavelength follows from the comparison of the classical energy conservation equation for an oscillator with the time-independent Schrodinger equation. In particular for the classical oscillator pp/2m + k/2 xx = E transforms into cos(wt)cos(wt) + sin(wt)sin(wt) = 1 which shows the oscillatory nature of the system explicitly. The time independent Schrodinger equation must also fit this form in the sense that kinetic energy and potential energy must become functions of a variable y such that there are no coefficients. E on the RHS is multiplied by a factor and cannot depend on parameters such as k or m and so is proportional to sqrt(k/m) i.e. the angular frequency. As a result momentum squared scales as 1/xx and momentum as 1/x. Thus momentum is of the form of 1/wavelength.These arguments seem to rely only on nonrelativistic physics. In a previous note (2) we argued that the quantum wavelength follows from p scaling x in the Lorentz invariant -Et+px. This is strictly a relativistic argument so how can it be compatible with the nonrelativistic oscillator argument suggested above? We use the result of (3) in which we argue that for a relativistic Klein-Gordon oscillator near the turning points velocity must be very low and then become 0. Thus a relativistic oscillator equation should become a nonrelativistic one in the neighbourhood of turning points. In other words the time-independent Schrodinger equation should hold in such a neighbourhood. Classically the form cos(wt)cos(wt)+sin(wt)sin(wt) should also hold. Thus p behaving as 1/x must apply both in the relativistic scenario because one has the Klein-Gordon equation, but also due to the classical oscillator scaling situation because the time-independent Schrodinger equation holds in the vicinity of the endpoints. Thus both arguments for p behaving as 1/x should apply and be consistent with each other.
In a previous note (1) we argued that the notion of a quantum wavelength follows from the comparison of the classical energy conservation equation for an oscillator with the time-independent Schrodinger equation. In particular for the classical oscillator pp/2m + k/2 xx = E transforms into cos(wt)cos(wt) + sin(wt)sin(wt) = 1 which shows the oscillatory nature of the system explicitly. The time independent Schrodinger equation must also fit this form in the sense that kinetic energy and potential energy must become functions of a variable y such that there are no coefficients. E on the RHS is multiplied by a factor and cannot depend on parameters such as k or m and so is proportional to sqrt(k/m) i.e. the angular frequency. As a result momentum squared scales as 1/xx and momentum as 1/x. Thus momentum is of the form of 1/wavelength.These arguments seem to rely only on nonrelativistic physics. In a previous note (2) we argued that the quantum wavelength follows from p scaling x in the Lorentz invariant -Et+px. This is strictly a relativistic argument so how can it be compatible with the nonrelativistic oscillator argument suggested above? We use the result of (3) in which we argue that for a relativistic Klein-Gordon oscillator near the turning points velocity must be very low and then become 0. Thus a relativistic oscillator equation should become a nonrelativistic one in the neighbourhood of turning points. In other words the time-independent Schrodinger equation should hold in such a neighbourhood. Classically the form cos(wt)cos(wt)+sin(wt)sin(wt) should also hold. Thus p behaving as 1/x must apply both in the relativistic scenario because one has the Klein-Gordon equation, but also due to the classical oscillator scaling situation because the time-independent Schrodinger equation holds in the vicinity of the endpoints. Thus both arguments for p behaving as 1/x should apply and be consistent with each other.
In Part III we argued that a Schrodinger equation of the form: a d/dx d/dx W(x) + bxx W(x) = E W(x) may be scaled x→y such that yy = xx sqrt(ba) and E→ E sqrt(a/b) so that E is proportional to sqrt(b/a). We applied this idea to the quantum oscillator and noted that classically w, the angular frequency, for the same equation is sqrt(b/a). We further argued that this implies the momentum operator in quantum mechanics should scale as 1/xx as d/dx d/dx does. In this note we use a slightly different argument to analyze this same problem. Instead of treating the classical oscillator and time-independent Schrodinger equation as separate, we link them and show that scaling must occur with E being proportional to w. Furthermore we argue that if quantum mechanically one wishes to use probabilities f(p,x) to calculate average kinetic energy at x i.e. KE(at x) = {Sum over p pp/2m f(p,x) } / {Sum over p f(p,x)}, then f(p,x) = f(px) and pp should scale as 1/xx. Thus comparison of the classical oscillator equation directly with a statistical average type of quantum equation which uses V(x), E and KE(at x) yields information about E, f(p,x) and p i.e. introduces the idea of wavelength. Furthermore the discrete quantum energy values E=hbar w (n+.5) are dependent on w not through any boundary value considerations.
In Parts I and II we noted that a quantum oscillator time-independent Schrodinger equation may be scaled such that x→y with yy=sqrt(km)xx and E→ Esqrt(m/k). Given that the LHS side is a function strictly of y which may be integrated from -infinite to infinite, the RHS must be independent of k and m. Thus E is proportional to sqrt(k/m) which “ happens” to be the oscillator classical angular frequency. In Part II we noted that the scaling occurs in the Schrodinger equation because one uses -id/dx as the momentum operator which follows from the exp(ipx) form of a free particle wavefunction. In this note, we show that for any equation: ad/dx d/dx W + b xx W = E W scaling of the form x→y such that yy =xx sqrt(b/a) and E→ E 1/sqrt(ba) occurs. Furthermore if d/dx is associated with momentum then writing conservation of energy using m/2 vv leads to 1/a www cos(wt)cos(wt) + b sin(wt)sin(wt) = b and w is proportional to sqrt(ab). Thus E must be proportional to w, the classical frequency. (An equation of the form a df/dt df/dt + b f f = constant must have a cos(wt) solution as is already known.) We try to extend these ideas by considering a wave on a string with both ends fastened. The string produces sinusoidal waves, but sound is created if there is air. One may consider sound to come in identical units of energy proportional to the angular frequency w. This is similar to the Planck blackbody radiation assumption about light. It may be shown that the string follows an oscillator solution because d/dx dy/dx which represents the change in the sin(theta) multiplied by the constant tension from x to x+dx is set equal to y i.e Force is proportional to y which is the oscillator result. If one sets energy proportional to w as in the case of light and wishes to have an equation strictly in x describing this scenario and also linked to energy conservation then the momentum squared term should have dimensions 1/xx. This suggests d/dx d/dx as a solution because E must be proportional to w. Thus we argue that one may work “backwards” modeling phonons like photons in a classical problem to obtain the quantum operator p = -id/dx which is linked to the free particle wavefunction exp(ipx).
The Klein Gordon equation for the harmonic oscillator may be written as (E-.5kx2)2=p2+mo2 ((1)) where mo is the rest mass and p the relativistic momentum. In the literature, it is argued that the resulting x4 term dominates for large x and prevents the Klein Gordon equation from being solved for bound states. As a result, it is replaced with an equation of the form: (E2-mo2) = (p-imwx)(p+imw) ((2)) where p=-ihbar d/dx in one dimension which may be solved exactly. Recently, the authors of (1) have used perturbation theory to calculate energy changes to ((1)) by using -.5V2 - e2 +2eV as a perturbative potential where V=.5kx2 and E=e+mo. They utilise the unperturbed wavefunction exp(-ax2) so large x4 values are damped. Their results are close to the exact calculations of ((2)) for the case of k=1 and m=1. In this note, we argue that for an oscillator there are classical turning points at which the quantum average kinetic energy -1/2m d/dx d/dx W should be zero and small nearby even if the average kinetic energy near x=0 corresponds to relativistic momenta. Thus, it is argued there are different spatial regions, each with its own quantum equation. The Schrodinger equation may be applied to regions near the classical turning point moving to infinite. In such a case, there is no issue with an x4 term. Near x=0, the full Klein Gordon equation ((1)) may be applied. There are questions of then matching the two sets of solutions. In this note, we attempt to investigate this scenario and compare results with those of (1) and (2). (1) and (2) suggest similar relativistic corrections to the nonrelativistic ground state oscillator energy of more than 20%. In this note, we suggest a smaller value.
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.
We take as our starting point the free particle classical action which may be written as A= -Et+px if t and x are treated as independent variables. It is possible to find two relationships linking v (velocity) to x and t from dA=0. The first is the classical wave result vp = E while the second is p=Ev where E=mo/sqrt(1-vv) (c=1). Furthermore one may write dA/dx partial = p ((1a)) and dA/dt partial = -E. ((1b)) This may be generalized to two eigenvalue differential equations, but this immediately begs the question: Why do this? We argue that Lorentz invariant form -Et+px represents scaling of both t and x. For example, p scales x and we argue there should be physical relevance to this. This physical relevance results in the wavelength proportional to 1/p. In other words, -Et+px represents more than velocity. The treatment of the scaling for a quantum wave and classical wave differ, we argue, in that the former keeps E,t and p,x separate while a classical wave does not. In other words pv=E applies to a classical wave which is described by cos(-Et+px). In other words, one takes ((1a)) and ((1b)) which separate E,t and p,x into two independent equations and takes account of scaling by combining the two (to include both x and t) i.e. creating the classical wave equation: 1/vv d/dt d/dt partial W(x,t) = d/dx d/dx partial W(x,t). We argue that quantum mechanics on the other hand keeps ((1a)) and ((1b)) separate. The velocity (relativistic) p=Ev is not a wave velocity. A solution to ((1a)) is exp(ipx) and to ((1b)) exp(-iEt). These are usually combined for a free particle to give exp(-iEt+ipx) and a wave is described with a phase velocity pv(phase)=E. We prefer to keep exp(-iEt) and exp(ipx) separate . For example, for two slit interference one does not make use of phase velocity or exp(-iEt). For a bound state one uses p=Ev, but a single free particle is represented by exp(ipx) in W(x)=wavefunction = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). exp(-iEn t) appears after one has found En, using the exp(ipx)’s in the sense that one does not include an exp(- i pp/2m t) for each exp(ipx). We argue that by separating E,t and p,x, the latter leads to a scheme for which there is “no time”. It is true that the particle moves at a speed x/t, but p=m1v1=m2v2 etc so p does not uniquely define velocity, rather it defines an impulse hit 2p = Integral F dt . Thus the scaling px which leads to an x, p only wave exp(ipx) is linked to an interaction. If the particle is moving freely and not interacting, then one has classical determinism i.e. v=constant = x/t. As soon as an interaction occurs, one changes from variables x,t which are linked to x, P conditional (x/p) and there is uncertainty in the position of x within a wavelength. The phase in exp(ipx) is only dependent on x not on the time the particle reaches x. exp(ipx) thus represents a probability and one must consider a sum of different possible outcomes (as in a two slit experiment) in order to describe an interaction. This is very different from the local interaction of classical mechanics. Nevertheless for a bound state one makes use of the two formalisms i.e. KE(x)= Sum over p pp/2m a(p)exp(ipx) / W(x) = KEclassical(x). We try to discuss some of these ideas in this note.
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).