The extremization of Fisher’s information subject to constraints usually containing V(x), the classical potential, appears in the literature (1), (2). V(x), however, is a concept introduced by Newton and associated with conservation of energy for a conservative potential. We argue the appearance of V(x) in an extremization approach to obtain an “equation” bypasses the already existing conservation of energy equation. If V(x) is used, we argue that one cannot dispense with conservation of energy and that it should be written a priori. If that is the case, what does extremization of Fisher’s information guarantee? In (1) a probability distribution P(x) is set equal to W(x)W(x) its square root. In (2), a complex function is defined: W(x) = sqrt(density(x)) exp(i S/hbar) where S is the classical action. Here density(x)=P(x). In both cases, the square root of the density appears. The problem, we argue, is that for a free particle with density(x)=P(x)=1, there is no Fisher’s information to extremize, yet the free particle is a key part of quantum mechanics. Its probability (square root probability) is the solution of an eigenvalue problem of the translation operator -id/dx and it is consistent with Newtonian mechanics i.e. conservation of energy with E= pp/2m. From this one may create an ensemble W(x) = Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx). The average kinetic energy is -1/2m d/dx/ dW/dx / W which happens to be the extremized value of Fisher’s information for P(x)=W(x)W(x). In other words, we argue that conservation of energy must occur and that one needs a solution for a free particle and this does not follow from Fisher’s information extremization. Extremization of Fisher’s information produces the form d/dx dW/dx which is taken to be linked to <pp> which already follows from -d/dx d/dx exp(ipx). One argument made in the literature (3) is that Newtonian conservation of energy also follows from Fisher’s information extremization i.e. the Lagrangian for a free particle .5m dx/dt dx/dt is of the form of a Fisher’s information with xx = probability (which is unusual). The strategy, it seems, is that one may apply extremization of Fisher’s information directly to a quantum problem by assuming a P(x)=W(x)W(x) and use d/dx instead of P=xx with d/dt. An issue, as noted, is that for a free particle W(x) exists, but extremization of Fisher’ information does not exist. Even if E=pp/2m (nonrelativistically) and this follows from the extremization of Fisher’s information, W(x)=exp(ipx) does not, but it is consistent with E=pp/2m. The reason for this consistency is that it contains p (momentum) which by its very definition must ensure E=pp/2m (nonrelativisitcally). Fisher information extremization, however, yields the bound state solution i.e. may be used to derive the Schrodinger equation. In (1) this is done for a bound state, in (2) for the more general case, but (2) defines W(x) = sqrt(density) exp(iS/hbar) where S= the classical action. For a free particle, the definition of W(x) is exp(-iEt+ipx) which is the solution of the free particle problem without using any equation. Thus the definition is the solution itself for the free particle case in (2). It seems that Fisher’s information, which uses density(x), does not include a scheme for describing motion in one direction in space without time present. exp(ipx) i.e. cos(px) and sin(px) distributions in two dimensions allow for this. This motion is associated with the translation operator d/dx which we argue is key in solving for the square-root probability of a free particle in keeping with E=pp/2m, which (3) argues follows from the extremization of Fisher’s information. Thus, even if one accepts the argument that Fisher’s information is responsible for the energy conservation equation, using Fisher’s information = Integral dt dx/dt dx/dt constant, does that allow one to immediately switch to a problem with P(x)=W(x)W(x) and the derivative d/dx and apply Fisher’s extremization there, we ask? We argue that there is an implicit assumption that: C1 dx/dt dx/dt = C2 d/dx dW/dx / W where C1 and C2 are constants This implies that for a free particle which treats each x point the same i.e. P(x)=constant, W(x)W(x) cannot be P(x). It also implies that d/dx dW/dx = pp W ((1)) where p=mov nonrelativistically. ((1)), however, is the solution to the free particle problem without performing any Fisher information extremization i.e. exp(ipx) is a solution. This solution may be used to create an ensemble W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) which may be used in a conservation of average energy equation. Thus we argue that Fisher extremization used to create the Schrodinger equation is based already on the idea that W(x)=exp(ipx) for a free particle and simply produces the conservation of energy equation which is already known to exist from Newtonian mechanics or Fisher’s information extremization which is argued to be the same as Lagrangian variation in (3).
The extremization of Fisher’s information subject to constraints usually containing V(x), the classical potential, appears in the literature (1), (2). V(x), however, is a concept introduced by Newton and associated with conservation of energy for a conservative potential. We argue the appearance of V(x) in an extremization approach to obtain an “equation” bypasses the already existing conservation of energy equation. If V(x) is used, we argue that one cannot dispense with conservation of energy and that it should be written a priori. If that is the case, what does extremization of Fisher’s information guarantee? In (1) a probability distribution P(x) is set equal to W(x)W(x) its square root. In (2), a complex function is defined: W(x) = sqrt(density(x)) exp(i S/hbar) where S is the classical action. Here density(x)=P(x). In both cases, the square root of the density appears. The problem, we argue, is that for a free particle with density(x)=P(x)=1, there is no Fisher’s information to extremize, yet the free particle is a key part of quantum mechanics. Its probability (square root probability) is the solution of an eigenvalue problem of the translation operator -id/dx and it is consistent with Newtonian mechanics i.e. conservation of energy with E= pp/2m. From this one may create an ensemble W(x) = Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx). The average kinetic energy is -1/2m d/dx/ dW/dx / W which happens to be the extremized value of Fisher’s information for P(x)=W(x)W(x). In other words, we argue that conservation of energy must occur and that one needs a solution for a free particle and this does not follow from Fisher’s information extremization. Extremization of Fisher’s information produces the form d/dx dW/dx which is taken to be linked to <pp> which already follows from -d/dx d/dx exp(ipx). One argument made in the literature (3) is that Newtonian conservation of energy also follows from Fisher’s information extremization i.e. the Lagrangian for a free particle .5m dx/dt dx/dt is of the form of a Fisher’s information with xx = probability (which is unusual). The strategy, it seems, is that one may apply extremization of Fisher’s information directly to a quantum problem by assuming a P(x)=W(x)W(x) and use d/dx instead of P=xx with d/dt. An issue, as noted, is that for a free particle W(x) exists, but extremization of Fisher’ information does not exist. Even if E=pp/2m (nonrelativistically) and this follows from the extremization of Fisher’s information, W(x)=exp(ipx) does not, but it is consistent with E=pp/2m. The reason for this consistency is that it contains p (momentum) which by its very definition must ensure E=pp/2m (nonrelativisitcally). Fisher information extremization, however, yields the bound state solution i.e. may be used to derive the Schrodinger equation. In (1) this is done for a bound state, in (2) for the more general case, but (2) defines W(x) = sqrt(density) exp(iS/hbar) where S= the classical action. For a free particle, the definition of W(x) is exp(-iEt+ipx) which is the solution of the free particle problem without using any equation. Thus the definition is the solution itself for the free particle case in (2). It seems that Fisher’s information, which uses density(x), does not include a scheme for describing motion in one direction in space without time present. exp(ipx) i.e. cos(px) and sin(px) distributions in two dimensions allow for this. This motion is associated with the translation operator d/dx which we argue is key in solving for the square-root probability of a free particle in keeping with E=pp/2m, which (3) argues follows from the extremization of Fisher’s information. Thus, even if one accepts the argument that Fisher’s information is responsible for the energy conservation equation, using Fisher’s information = Integral dt dx/dt dx/dt constant, does that allow one to immediately switch to a problem with P(x)=W(x)W(x) and the derivative d/dx and apply Fisher’s extremization there, we ask? We argue that there is an implicit assumption that: C1 dx/dt dx/dt = C2 d/dx dW/dx / W where C1 and C2 are constants This implies that for a free particle which treats each x point the same i.e. P(x)=constant, W(x)W(x) cannot be P(x). It also implies that d/dx dW/dx = pp W ((1)) where p=mov nonrelativistically. ((1)), however, is the solution to the free particle problem without performing any Fisher information extremization i.e. exp(ipx) is a solution. This solution may be used to create an ensemble W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) which may be used in a conservation of average energy equation. Thus we argue that Fisher extremization used to create the Schrodinger equation is based already on the idea that W(x)=exp(ipx) for a free particle and simply produces the conservation of energy equation which is already known to exist from Newtonian mechanics or Fisher’s information extremization which is argued to be the same as Lagrangian variation in (3).
In (1), a variational approach is applied to Fisher’s information (with constraints) to obtain a differential equation in P(x)=probability to be at x. It is suggested the equation may be simplified using P(x)=W(x)W(x) where W(x) is real. The result is the nonrelativistic Schrodinger equation with mass=1. As a first observation, we note that Fisher’s information, which is a purely statistical quantity, should not necessarily yield a nonrelativistic equation which is an approximation of relativistic results. In particular, we argue that Fisher’s information is used to find <pp> not necessarily 1/2m <pp>, but this is a minor point. A more important issue, we argue, is the meaning of P(x) in a bound system. A classical bound system is sometimes said to have a P(x)=C/v(x) i.e. P(x)dx is proportional to dt, the amount of time a particle spends in each equally sized dx. In the high energy limit, the envelope of a quantum bound probability P(x)=W(x)W(x) (W(x)=wavefunction) is said to roughly match C/v(x), yet this density does not follow from the extremization of Fisher’s information (together with two general constraints which yield E and V(x)=potential). This begs the question: What is P(x)? If one considers a particle moving at constant speed (i.e constant momentum) then P(x)=constant because each dx point carries the same probability. Classically a particle placed in a box with infinite potential walls would have a P(x) =constant and p and -p motion would be separated in time. Thus if P(x) is to have meaning in a box, one must conclude that the probabilities associated with p and -p are not constant, but rather functions of x. This then leads to the notion of a complex new kind of probability (which maps to P(x)=constant) for a free particle i.e. W(x) =cos(px) + i sin(px) so that the modulus W*(x)W(x)=P(x)= 1. These ideas seem to go beyond the notion of Fisher information. What then is the role of Fisher information? We argue it is related to two very specific moments of the distribution cos(px) or rather W(x) = Sum over p a(p)cos(px) with a(p)=a(-p), namely and <pp>. In classical physics there exists p and pp at each x point (but one is the square of the other), but with distributions <p does not equal to <pp> in general. Both and <pp> are linked to physical concepts which exist in Newtonian mechanics, namely impulse and work. With the presence of cos(px) one has a combination of Newtonian mechanics and a statistical distribution. We argue that the role of Fisher’s information is to allow one to transform from to <pp>. In particular, -idW/dx appears in Fisher’s information (and is linked to ), but the specific role of a variation is to transform it into <pp> which appears in a conservation of energy equation. We argue that this is why Fisher’s information may be used to derive the Schrodinger equation.
Note March 9, 2023 At the same time that Fisher's information is linked with variance of an estimator, it is also linked with a classical notion of pressure for a particle in a box with infinite potential walls. Thus minimizing the variance subject to Integral P(x)dx=1 may also be thought of as extremizing pressure with respect to Integral P(x)dx=1. We argue that the cos(px), sin(px) distributions are linked with the impulse p and at the same time the particle moves with an average speed p/m (nonrelativistically). A quantum free particle is represented by the free particle wavefunction exp(ipx). This consists of two periodic distributions (in 2 dimensions) such that their modulus is 1. sin(px) and cos(px) are a possible solution set. sin(px) and cos(px) are, however, linked to a unit radius which rotates in 2 dimensions. Alternatively one may note that d/dx cos(px) = -p sin(px) and d/dx sin(px) = p cos(px). Thus one may determine the form of a free particle “probability” using the notion of periodicity, 2 dimensions and a constant modulus. No concept of extremization is needed. It is interesting to note, however, that d/dx d/dx cos(px) = pp cos(px) and d/dx d/dx sin(px) = pp sin(px). Each distribution sin(px), cos(px) by itself represents a solution of extremization problem, namely the extremization of Fisher’s information defined by I= Integral dx P(x) {d/dx ln(P)} {d/dx ln(P)} where P(x)=W(x)W(x) and W(x)=cos(px) or sin(px). Then I = Integral dx dW/dx dW/dx. Extremizing with respect to the constraint Integral P(x) = 1 yields: d/dx d/dxW = constant W. cos(px), sin(px) and exp(ipx) are solutions of this extremization equation. In order to have a solution which treats all x points the same in a certain sense, one may choose exp(ipx). The point is that even for a free particle, the two distributions involved are linked with extremization of Fisher’s information (with Integral W(x)W(x)dx=.5Length), although one may obtain exp(ipx) with no extremization and no knowledge of Fisher’s information. Why should Fisher’s information be extremized? Fisher’s information is a statistical quantity which appears in the Cramer-Rao bound: var(estimator) >= 1/ I. One may take the inverse of this equation and consider variance(estimator) to be linked to a spread or uncertainty in x. If one wishes to minimize this, one may maximize I subject to constraints. Thus there seems to be a purely statistical approach (i.e the extremization of Fisher’s information) even for a free particle. This extremization approach, however, is linked directly to the fact that one has two probability distributions in a 2-dimensional object with a constant modulus. This does not have the appearance of any extremization, but is in fact equivalent to one for each distribution function. In fact, we argue that if P(x)=W(x)W(x) with Integral P(x)dx=1, then if W(x) is cyclical/periodic i.e. d/dx d/dx W = constant W, then W may be obtained through the extremization of Fisher’s information subject to the constraint Integral P(x)dx =1. Thus periodicity and extremization are linked, but in a somewhat unusual manner.
It is well known that a Lagrangian (usually kinetic energy - potential) may be varied to produce Newton’s second law of motion. In (1) it is noted that kinetic energy is proportional to a Fisher’s information of the form b Integral dt dx/dt dx/dt (b=constant) and so in a sense Fisher’s information may be varied together with another piece i.e. -V(x). In (2), it is noted that Fisher’s information, this time with a probability P(x), i.e. b Integral dx P(x) {d/dx ln(P) } {d/dx lnP) } may be varied (with constraints) to yield the Schrodinger equation. (One may note that the two definitions of Fisher’s information are the same if P(x)=x(t)x(t) in the first case.) Here we consider the notion of impulse and pressure which depends on p. We argue that a free quantum particle with constant p undergoes x=p/m t on average, but is associated with a probability distribution exp(ipx) which contains uncertainty in x (within a wavelength) and no time. P, however, represents an impulse which the particle may impart. In the case of potential V(x) one may consider a linear (interfering) sum of exp(ipx)’s i.e. W(x)= wavefunction = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). This leads to an average impulse of -idW/dx / W. Classically pressure is created by multiplying impulse by velocity (flux). If time does not exist within a wavelength then there is no time within it. There is, however, still an external clock and p ave in a sense should correspond to an m v(ave) nonrelativistically. Thus WW (bound system) is in a sense like a pressure. One may then suggest that for an equilibrium scenario one extremizes this pressure with respect to constraints (EWW and V(x)W). The variation is with respect to W(x), the wavefunction. Given that a bound particle maps to an rms momentum such that KE(x) = prms(x)prms(x)/2m where prms(x) is the classical value, then at the classical level prms(x) vrms(x) should be pressure and should also satisfy an extremization equation. In fact, the extremization equation using WW should be very closely related to it. One is in fact the d/dx of the other. The classical notion of pressure, proportional to vv, may be extremized subject to constraints. This leads to Newton’s second law which contains d/dt explicitly. Changing to “x” concepts yields v(x)d/dx which may be integrated to yield an energy conservation equation matching the quantum one. Thus we try to think of extremization of Fisher’s information i.e. EPI (extreme physical information) in terms of pressure, in both the classical and quantum cases.
In (1) we argued that one may derive Newton’s second law (which is equivalent to an energy conservation equation) by using information arguments. We argued that V(x), a potential, is a fixed piece of spatial information linked to the x axis being divided into equal dx units. The variable spatial information is dt(x) i.e. the time spent in each dx or v(x) =dx/dt (to put this in the same form as the time displacement generator). One may not simply compare v(x) directly with V(x) because they change differently. v(x) changes in a weighted way i.e. v(x)d/dx or d/dt while V(x) changes as d/dx V(x). Thus we suggest d/dt v(x) = C V(x) which ultimately leads to Newton’s second law. Using d/dt → v(x)d/dx and integrating yields conservation of energy: p(x)p(x)/2m + V(x) = E. A similar argument was used in (2) to deal with the special relativistic case. There one cannot use d/dt → v(x)d/dx to obtain a conservation of energy equation. The point we wish to make is that for both the nonrelativistic and relativistic classical equations there are two types of “information” equations. The first is a “force” i.e. -dV/dx equation which is based on how V(x) changes with x. The LHS of this equation is linked to d/dt p(x). The second is a corresponding energy conservation equation. The quantum case is quite different, we argue, because a free particle is described by exp(-iEt+ipx). There is still the notion of p=mo dx/dt(x) as in the nonrelativistic case because p must be defined, but exp(ipx) is additional imposed piece of spatial information. -id/dx exp(ipx) = p exp(ipx) and -d/dx d/dx exp(ipx) = pp exp(ipx). This begs the question: How does one reconcile the two? For the nonrelativistic Newtonian and relativistic cases it is possible to have two equations (one with Force the other with energy) using one x dependent variable p(x). In the quantum case one may take an average to define a kind of complex = Sum over p a(p) p exp(ipx)/ Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx, but this is complex, not real. Furthermore both +/- is included in so there seems to be a problem linking it with changes in V(x) in one direction. Thus it seems that one is forced to consider the second kind of information equation from classical mechanics and define a <pp> = Sum over p a(p) pp exp(ipx)/ {Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx)}. In the nonrelativsitic case this may be multiplied by 1/2mo and then added to V(x) to obtain a constant E. If one only looks at <pp>/2mo as a spatial function then this is identical to KE(x) i.e. kinetic energy(x) for a classical system. Thus in the nonrelativstic case, Newtonian energy conservation is always embedded in the quantum system regardless of the energy. In other words the quantum bound equation i.e. the time independent Schrodinger is not obtained independently from the classical one in terms of information.One may ask: How does information related to exp(ipx) affect the quantum system? Two immediate ways are as follows. First <pp>/2mo = -1/2mo d/dx dW/dx / W where W= Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). This leads to a differential equation which has discrete En values verified by experiment. Secondly W is linked to spatial density W*(x)W(x) which exhibits crests and near zero regions. Using <pp> suggests that p(x) in the classical case is linked to prms(x) quantum. Thus building quantum mechanics using “informational” ideas seems to involve embedding classical conservation of energy into the quantum equation a priori. This holds both nonrelativstically or relativistically (Klein-Gordon equation). This immediately raises the question: If classical mechanics (in the form of energy conservation) is embedded in quantum mechanics for any energy, why do people seek to take some kind of limit (3) to obtain classical mechanics from quantum? We argue that quantum mechanics has more spatial information than classical, but retains classical conservation of energy so there is no limit to take. One may simply ignore ideas related to the wavelength to obtain classical mechanics, we argue.
In (1) the Schrodinger equation is derived using the extremization of Fisher information in a certain way formulated in (2) i.e. Extreme Physical Information. Fisher information, however, is defined in terms of P(x) which in quantum mechanics is W*(x)W(x) where W(x) is the wavefunction. As a result, the Schrodinger equation is derived in terms of P(x) and then the mathematical substitution P(x)=W(x)W(x) for a bound state “simplifies” the form of the equation. Otherwise there would be no need to introduce the wavefunction. Furthermore P(x) = constant for a quantum free particle which is also a solution of the Schrodinger equation. For P(x)=constant, however, one would normally not consider using the Fisher information. We further note that in a physical example, namely that of the reflection/refraction of light from an interface of media one is forced to introduce the concept of a wavefunction i.e. the square root of flux, otherwise the problem cannot be solved. Thus in this situation one does not solve the problem in terms of P(x) and then introduce W(x) to simplify the form. In particular, if one considers a single photon moving to the right, it either reflects or refracts (with probability), but the ensuing equations involve the weight of the square root fluxes (wavefunctions) of all three. How can this be unless there is uncertainty in time and space which allows one to have all three together? Thus the reflection/refraction problem depends on square root probability or flux and introduces the idea of uncertainty in x, t. Given the translational invariance in the problem, it is natural to introduce the translation operator d/dx. In fact, one may define the uncertainty in x such that one has an eigenfunction of -id/dx i.e. exp(ipx). This is complex and so its modulus respects P(x)=constant which would yield a Fisher’s information of 0, meaning that there is no probability and hence no need for Fisher’s information. There is, however, probability in x, but a different level than the deterministic x=vt where v=constant. Thus we argue that one may obtain exp(ipx) strictly from the notion of translational invariance. In other words, Fisher information is not required to find this form and the quantum physics associated with it. Nevertheless Fisher information and EPI (Extreme physical Information) may be used to derive the Schrodinger equation (applied to a bound state) and one may deduce exp(ipx) from this. We note, however, that Fisher information makes use of d/dx which is the translational generator and so the idea of translational invariance and Fisher’s information/EPI may be linked.
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).