Quantum mechanics is based on two different probability schemes, namely W(x) =wavefunction and W*(x)W*(x)=P(x), with one being linked to the other. Why should there be two probability schemes? In (0) we argued that there are two spatial behaviour schemes because an impulse p (momentum) is automatically associated with two spatial distributions cos(px) and sin(px) in exp(ipx), yet a particle with constant p moves as x=p/m t. Thus if one is only concerned with motion, each x point has the same weight, and this is physically measurable as a photon or electron travels a certain distance in a certain time in free space. On the other hand, an impulse interaction is associated with exp(ipx) is a completely different spatial picture, and this too is measurable as in a 2-slit experiment. Thus it seems the two schemes are measured differently. We argue that this is an important issue because if there are two x-probability schemes there should be different entropies associated with each. Ttraditionally (1), one sees two quantum entropies: - W*(x)W(x) ln {W*(x)W(x)} and - a*(p)a(p) ln{ a*(p)a(p) } where W(x) = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). These are associated with the x=p/m t scheme or x-dependence based on motion or average motion. W*(x)W(x) represents spatial density which should be measured presumably by some sort of scattering, but we ask whether some information is lost in this approach? In particular, we note that a wavefunction may be obtained for a bound state. In the high energy limit, the envelope over the density W*(x)W(x) is said (2) to match C/v(x) from classical physics where .5mv(x)v(x) + V(x) = E. C/v(x), however, is proportional to delta t (with delta x being constant) and has nothing to do with the strength of an impulse hit. In the classical case, there is a single v(x) and so a single p(x) in each delta x thus no impulse entropy within a delta x i.e. at a point x. In quantum mechanics, however, we argue that a constant p automatically has an x probability distribution exp(ipx) associated with it and there might be an entropy linked to this.This entropy is associated with a probability to receive a p impulse at x and is so not linked to interference while the W*(x)W(x) is. In (3) we introduced the impulse or wavelength entropy (for a free particle |cos(px)|/C ln{| cos(px)|/C},, but here we wish to investigate its properties more closely.
Quantum mechanics is based on two different probability schemes, namely W(x) =wavefunction and W*(x)W*(x)=P(x), with one being linked to the other. Why should there be two probability schemes? In (0) we argued that there are two spatial behaviour schemes because an impulse p (momentum) is automatically associated with two spatial distributions cos(px) and sin(px) in exp(ipx), yet a particle with constant p moves as x=p/m t. Thus if one is only concerned with motion, each x point has the same weight, and this is physically measurable as a photon or electron travels a certain distance in a certain time in free space. On the other hand, an impulse interaction is associated with exp(ipx) is a completely different spatial picture, and this too is measurable as in a 2-slit experiment. Thus it seems the two schemes are measured differently. We argue that this is an important issue because if there are two x-probability schemes there should be different entropies associated with each. Ttraditionally (1), one sees two quantum entropies: - W*(x)W(x) ln {W*(x)W(x)} and - a*(p)a(p) ln{ a*(p)a(p) } where W(x) = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). These are associated with the x=p/m t scheme or x-dependence based on motion or average motion. W*(x)W(x) represents spatial density which should be measured presumably by some sort of scattering, but we ask whether some information is lost in this approach? In particular, we note that a wavefunction may be obtained for a bound state. In the high energy limit, the envelope over the density W*(x)W(x) is said (2) to match C/v(x) from classical physics where .5mv(x)v(x) + V(x) = E. C/v(x), however, is proportional to delta t (with delta x being constant) and has nothing to do with the strength of an impulse hit. In the classical case, there is a single v(x) and so a single p(x) in each delta x thus no impulse entropy within a delta x i.e. at a point x. In quantum mechanics, however, we argue that a constant p automatically has an x probability distribution exp(ipx) associated with it and there might be an entropy linked to this.This entropy is associated with a probability to receive a p impulse at x and is so not linked to interference while the W*(x)W(x) is. In (3) we introduced the impulse or wavelength entropy (for a free particle |cos(px)|/C ln{| cos(px)|/C},, but here we wish to investigate its properties more closely.
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.
Quantum free particles are represented by exp(ipx) which we argue is a dynamical probability which maps into a static probability exp(-ipx)exp(ipx) i.e. the usual spatial density. Shannon’s entropy = - Sum over i P(i) ln(P(i)) is often associated with the static probability P(x)=W*(x)W(x) (1), but in (2) we argue that one may introduce a different probability C1 Real(W(x)). In this note we consider both in different examples. In particular we argue that the two different probability definitions are ultimately linked with momentum conservation. The form W*(x)W(x) introduces local nonconstant spatial densities if there are mixed exp(ip1x) and exp(ip2x)’s within W(x). If there are not, this form W*(x)W(x) does not distinguish space i.e. exp(ipx)exp(ipx+ib) is still a constant. Nevertheless interference may still occur which may be linked with entropy. Thus we first examine the case of exp(ipx) + exp(ipx + ib) where b is a constant phase shift. W*(x)W(x)=constant which does not lead to a structure different from exp(-ipx)exp(ipx), yet W(x)=C2{exp(ipx) + exp(ipx+ib)} interfere. On the other hand |cos(px)| and | cos(px)(1+cos(b)) - sin(px)sin(b) | are not the same distributions (one is a parity eigenstate, the other is not) and so we argue there is a different local entropy density. Thus introducing extra information i.e. b changes local density and entropy density if one adjusts the definition of probability used. We next consider W(x)= exp(ip1x)+exp(ip2x). One may also use the probability C3 Real|W(x)|, but here we are interested in an association with conservation of momentum. For a given exp(ipx), exp(-ipx)exp(ipx)=1. We argue that this represents a steady state picture i.e. a kind of equilibrium in which all x points are treated the same. W*(x)W(x) breaks this equilibrium scenario by introducing a term 2 cos( (p1-p2)x ). Thus both local spatial density and local entropy (based on W*W) are different and do not represent the “equilibrium” scenario. We further argue that momentum conservation may be linked with this equilibrium type of density and entropy density at least in the case of the transition amplitude <p1 V(x) p2>. V(x)exp(ipx) yields a sum of exp(ipx)’s, but only exp(ip1x) survives the integral over dx. The others create spatial densities which are not constant and so represent local entropy densities which do not treat all x points the same i.e .is not an equilibrium one. Thus we try to use Shannon’s entropy with two different probability definitions to analyse different quantum interference scenarios and argue that momentum conservation (and possibly others) may be linked with local entropy density in some situations.
Given a coin, one has two complementary pieces of information and a corresponding probability of .5 and .5. Similar considerations apply to a die. As a result, one may get the impression that there exists a unique probability distribution in a probabilistic system and that this single probability scheme is linked to the constrained maximization of Shannon’s entropy or Fisher’s information. We argue however, that there may be different probability schemes in the same problem associated with different pieces of information which are relevant to the physics which occurs in the system. Thus, we argue that it is the physics which selects the probability distribution to be examined. For example, one may loosely think in terms of a detailed probability scheme versus a kind-of coarse grained one in the same system. For example, for a quantum free particle, P(x)=1 i.e there is the same probability for a particle to be at any x point. This, however, is based on velocity, i.e. the relationship between dx and dt. There is another piece of information in the system, namely mo which together with v yields momentum (either relativistic or nonrelativistic) .This need not be measured using a clock (which velocity requires), but by the impact of an impulse on a target. Thus, nonrelativistically p=m1v1=m2v2 give the same impulse, but have different velocities. Quantum mechanics shows that a free particle is governed by exp(ipx) which contains two unnormalized probability distributions cos(px) and sin(px). These are key for impulse interactions (i.e. the physics of interactions such as with a 2-slit apparatus etc), yet exp(ipx)/sqrt(L) maps into the “coarse-grained” P(x)=exp(ipx)exp(-ipx) / L = constant. P(x) is one probability scheme in the problem and exp(ipx) another (for a free particle). Each answers some physical questions, but one needs to know which probability to use (i.e. what information is relevant) to a particular situation. P(x) is relevant to motion in space not involving interactions. exp(ipx) is relevant to interactions (even with a magnetic vector potential causing no magnetic field) or with a 2-slit apparatus. Furthermore, in a quantum bound state, one has W*(x)W(x) = P(x) (W(x)=wavefunction =Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx)) and a*(p)a(p).=P(p). Each probability scheme corresponds to the analysis of a different kind of measurement, but various schemes may also be linked. Thus one may have to start with one to create the others. For example, exp(ipx) is the base for creating W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx), which ultimately yields P(x)=W*(x)W(x). As a result, we argue that if probability exists in a system, it is not necessarily the case that there is a unique probability distribution. There may be various probability schemes linked with different information and different measurements/interactions. Thus, physics leads one to focus on a specific probability scheme. As a result, we argue that one must be careful when discussing pure statistical quantities and their extremization, because these quantities, like Shannon’s entropy and Fisher’ s information, contain a classical probability distribution, but they do not indicate which distribution to use in the case that a system has more than one. . As a result, the analysis of a system requires knowledge of the physics (interactions) occurring.We argue against thinking in terms of physics following directly from statistical considerations. The constrained extremization of one statistical quantity may yield a probability distribution related to one piece of information, but not to another. Furthermore, Shannon’s entropy and Fisher’s information pertain to classical probability 0<=P(x)<1 and Integral P(x)dx =1. The wavefunction, exp(ipx)/sqrt(L), is comprised of two probability distributions and ADD and MULTIPLIES statistically (i.e. OR and AND ) situations, but is involved in relative average calculations because it is not normalized. It is also different because it allows for positive and negative values. These are properties which do not follow from statistics using a classical P(x).
The notion of entropy originates historically in classical physics and is intertwined with thermodynamics. Shannon’s entropy: - Sum over i P(i) ln(P(i)), where P(i) is the probability for i, however, seems to apply to any probability, but in quantum mechanics appears to be particularly linked to spatial and momentum entropy (1) i.e. - Integral dx W*(x)W(x) ln[ W*(x)W(x)] and - Sum over p a*(p)a(p) ln[ a*(p)a(p) ] where W(x)= wavefunction = Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx). In this note we speculate that one may create an entropy from the real part of exp(ipx) i.e. cos(px) as this term is associated with probability within a wavelength even though the “center of mass” of the particle may be moving uniformly at v=x/t=constant and W*(x)W(x)=1 or a constant. The latter implies an entropy independent of p but there is uncertainty in a free particle due to its wavelength which is experimentally manifested. We argue there is no reason to limit entropy to x or p considerations. For a bound state, a pattern of crests and troughs of different lengths and heights may be produced and so again there is a pattern of unnormalized probability distributions with different weights. The absolute value may be taken so negative wavefunction values are not an issue. For both the free particle and the bound state two features emerge. First the shape of the distributions is linked to the curvature which in turn is associated with the kinetic energy. Thus the probability distributions which describe the quantum system are governed by kinetic energy. Secondly, a pattern of distributions, both negative and positive, ensures that exp(ipx) is perpendicular to other exp(ip1 x) functions and Wn(x) is perpendicular to other Wn1(x)’s. In other words energy identifies the statistical state which exists throughout space and one cannot confuse the identity of one state with another. Thus they are orthogonal throughout space and probability distributions (linked to entropy) seem to enforce this. The inner product of W*(x) and W(x) is like an inner product of a product probability of a state and its time reversed state. We suggest one should be able to define a Shannon’s entropy expression for both |cos(px)|/C1 from exp(ipx) over a half wavelength where C1 is a normalization factor and |W(x)|/C2 roughly over the length over which it has humps i.e. roughly the classical turning points for an oscillator for example. This entropy is not additive and does not map to classical entropy in the large n (energy level) limit. Furthermore it may not be linked to thermodynamics because it is not linked to x or p. Nevertheless, it might be used to describe uncertainty within the quantity system and equilibrium/stable scenarios which are observed in nature. For example, different Wn(x) states are statistically stable states, but one may knock out the particle and it will be in an exp(ipx) state which is also stable. Furthermore, a photon may excite Wn1(x) to Wn2(x), thus this new entropy seems to be linked to stable states allowed in nature. The “price to pay”, however, seems to be uncertainty in wavelength regions for a free particle and the crest/trough regions for a bound state. We also consider some properties of a similar entropy for bound states.
In classical physics, a particle traveling to the right is the mirror image of one traveling to the left. In terms of a spatial density (the time spent in each constant dx), the value is the same, as is the energy. A similar notion of such a spatial invariance is in the classical conservation of energy equation for a bound particle: p(x)p(x)/2m + V(x) = E. Quantum mechanics seems to be different because exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx) are distinctly different spatial probabilities, i.e. they are dynamic. It is not just that case that a particle moves to the right for exp(ipx) and to the left for exp(-ipx). The impulse hit probabilities (represented by exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx)) are distinctly different. If one wishes to create an OR situation and write: W(x) = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) and use this in a conservation of energy equation, then simply including only positive or negative p values in W(x) leads to a complex average kinetic energy -1/2m d/dx dW/dx / W which cannot be used with V(x) and E. Furthermore, W_ (only negative p) and W+ (only positive p) values do not yield the same average kinetic energy. Fortunately, given that this is a statistical average for a localized object (somewhat analogous to a gas), one may combine W+ + W- and obtain a real kinetic energy. We have argued in previous notes that there exists a quantum-classical duality. For example, for a free particle one has two independent notions. One is x=vt which describes the center-of-mass of the particle. We take this to represent a state description which treats v and -v as mirror images. exp(ipx), on the other hand, represents probabilistic impulse hits and does not define the state by itself, we argue, only its interactions. Interactions are physical and define what happens in an interacting system. One may, however, measure a system, i.e interact with exp(ipx), and this should define a measurement state ( a second state ensemble average). For example, exp(ipx)exp(-ipx) = 1 which is equivalent to the constant dt in each dx associated with x=vt. Thus, the two states coincide, but exp(ipx)exp(-ipx) means that one may place the 2-slit apparatus at any x point and is not about the center-of-mass, as x=vt is. In some cases, the two states are quite different. W*(x)W(x) represents an interaction state, but vrms(x) from .5mvrms(x)vrms(x) = -1/2m d/dx dW/dx / W represents a center-of-mass state description. (Note: in these cases a state means an average state, i.e. an average over many ensemble entries.) If one takes W*(x)W(x) and integrates over x, then interference terms vanish and one obtains a classical counting of distinct p value states with their weight a*(p)a(p).This, we argue, leads to the notion of orthogonality of probabilities. In classical probability, there is no such notion, but there is the notion of AND (multiply) probabilities. Given exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx), if one multiplies one removes p, i.e. the interactions and only sees the state left. W*(x)W(x) yields a set of peaks which represent a pattern of probabilistic hits in space which define a state which one would measure in space. The interference pattern, however, must be one such that if one integrates over x, one only obtains a classical sum of probabilities a*(p)a(p)’s as mentioned above. This leads to the notion of orthogonal exp(ipx)’s (which follows mathematically anyway). If one considers different bound En states, then these two are orthogonal because W*n1(x)Wn2(x) mean n1 and n2 are associated with different energies and integrating over x cannot show a result which looks like a state result, where W*n(x)Wn(x) shows a state result. In order to achieve this orthogonality (linked directly to the notion of a state) one must have that Wn(2) usually has 0 points and is positive and negative with the possible exception of a ground state. In other words, if Wn1*(x)Wn2(x) integrated over x is not 0, one violates conservation of energy. As a result, we argue an average probability for a bound state must statistically include +p and -p contributions and must create a function which has positive and negative peaks (except possibly for the ground state), i.e. W(x) must have 0 points. This W(x) is linked to a measurement state W*(x)W(x), but this is strictly considering exp(ipx)s. We argue that there are two pieces of information for a free particle, x=vt and exp(ipx). There must also be an average state linked to x=vt and this given by KEave(x) = .5m vrms(x)vrms(x) + V(x) = E which shows that the particle may exist and have average kinetic energy even at W(x)=0 points. When measuring a system, one interacts with the exp(ipx)s and so the W*(x)W(x) state is the one which is traditionally presented, but whether one measures the center-of-mass motion or not, one also has the notion of the x=vt, i.e. vrms(x) state (average) as well, we argue.
In Part III we considered the quantum free particle wavefunction exp(ipx) as consisting of two parts cos(px) and sin(px) treated as two different dimensions. We also argued that each, is a probability distribution in space and so associated with an internal force. One may notice that exp(ipx) does not contain time, but still predicts the direction of motion. Given that one cannot consider x(t) within a wavelength hbar/p even though on average the particle moves as x=p/m t, there is no real sense of time within a wavelength. Extending this idea, one repeats cos(px) humps. Given that the particle is moving, one must somehow juxtapose two spatial probability densities. The derivative of the distribution is proportional to average momentum and so one may see the notion of action-reaction occurring between cos(px) and sin(px) and within cos(px) and sin(px) accounting for the sign changes with x. We argue that d/dx cos(px) regions which change sign imply that the impulse direction changes. Furthermore, cos(px) has regions near the endpoints of the wavelength which have very low values (close to zero) which is fine if one has two juxtapositioned distributions. If, however, one creates a single particle bound state, exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx) for a(p)=a(-p) (a specific parity) give the appearance of a cancelation leaving the impression of 2cos(px) i.e a single “static” distribution. This occurs because there is no internal time in the picture and so p and -p probabilities add. The so-called canceled pieces have not really disappeared. as will be argued, they simply do not contribute to an average impulse which is what experiments apparently detect. Thus “negative” quantum probability is linked to impulse in the opposite direction, we argue. Thus interference is really linked to the notion of probabilistic impulses i.e. p exp(ipx) even though exp(ipx) is used as a kind of probability. exp(ipx) contains internal action-reaction impulse hits which have experimental consequences as we argue is shown in a reflection/refraction problem, but are also linked with impulse hits associated with p. Thus there are two sets of forces to deal with. This, we argue, explains why one writes the energy conservation equation AA/c1=BB/c1+CC/c2 for reflection/refraction where A,B,C represent the incident, reflected and refracted rays and AA simply shows that intensity/flux is positive as two equations: A+B=C and Ap - pB = p2C with E=pc. The two equations,, needed to solve for B,C in terms of A,, describe the internal force in exp(ipx) and the probabilistic impulse p exp(ipx). For a single particle bound state, one considers a linear combination of free particle states indicating that impulse hits represent the underlying physics. Given the apparent spatial invariance of a free particle exp(ipx), one may wonder how a kinetic energy profile appears. We argue that different p values yield different peak points for maximum impulse hits and these are out of synch leading to a spatial distribution of KE(x) or d/dx KE(x) which is equivalent to -dV/dx =Force where V(x) is the potential.