In (1) the Wigner transform of an oscillator is calculated and the high n energy level limit taken using the WKB approximation yielding a result proportional to delta(p - p(x)) + delta(p+p(x)) where p(x) = sqrt(2m(E-.5kxx)). The Wigner transform involves quantum wavefunctions which for bound systems include +/- p components which interfere i.e. a(p)(exp(ipx) + exp(-ipx) for a(p)=a(-p). Classically, a bound particle moves to the right during one time interval and to the left during the other so there is no interference of +/-p. The quantum wavefunction retains +/-p interference for all energy levels and so does not portray the full physical information of the bound system i.e. leads to the two delta functions. For high n (energy level), crests and troughs are very narrow compared to the length of the system, approximating dx units of length. Thus, uncertainty in time is only within these tiny crests/troughs, otherwise there is a distinct time position relationship as in classical physics, but the wavefunction W(x) does not show it. How then may the wavefunction be interpreted? We argue the time independent wavefunction, say for a bound state, represents an averaged steady stream picture which is often not the physical picture. For example, a bound particle is not a steady stream average nor is a finite number of photons hitting an interface of media with different indices of refraction/reflection. Nevertheless, the steady stream approach with time removed may be used to solve the problem i.e. ultimately find a one dimensional spatial density (which averages out the original two dimensional probability of exp(ipx), energy levels etc. For instance, the energy levels of a bound system do not depend on following the particle in time. We raise this issue because we think it may have implications on the calculation of entropy in bound single particle quantum systems. In general, a spatial Shannon’s entropy is defined as: - W(x)W(x) ln[W(x)W(x)] (one dimensional problem). W(x) (wavefunction) is real because p/-p pieces interfere in a steady stream picture. A single bound particle, however, is not a steady stream picture. exp(ipx) is a dynamic probability equal to cos(px)+i sin(px) to indicate the direction of motion. Simply because exp(ipx)+exp(-px) removes the complex portion (i.e. for a steady state picture with a(p)=a(-p)) does not mean that this represents the full physical picture especially as energy levels become high and crests/troughs become narrower with respect to the overall system length it seems there is no justification for the steady stream interference picture.. In other words, using a real W(x) in a Shannon’s entropy expression treats one dimensional probability W(x) = bound wavefunction, but this is not the full probability in the picture, we argue. Full probability is two dimensional and demonstrates direction for many energy levels (especially high ones). For a free particle exp(ipx), cos(px) and sin(px) are essentially the same distribution. Thus cos(px)cos(px) describes the probability distribution in x. For W1(x)=Sum p>0 a(p)exp(ipx), Real(W1(x)) is not equal to Imaginary(W1(x)) because one does not have a simple shift of the real distribution to obtain the imaginary one. The real distribution is chosen to represent probability because the interference of exp(ipx), exp(-ipx) terms removes the imaginary piece, but it is removed only on average. If physically exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx) should not interfere, then one may need to take some kind of average of Real(W1(x))Real(W1(x)) and Imaginary(W1(x))Imaginary(W1(x)) and use this in Shannon’s entropy.
In (1) the Wigner transform of an oscillator is calculated and the high n energy level limit taken using the WKB approximation yielding a result proportional to delta(p - p(x)) + delta(p+p(x)) where p(x) = sqrt(2m(E-.5kxx)). The Wigner transform involves quantum wavefunctions which for bound systems include +/- p components which interfere i.e. a(p)(exp(ipx) + exp(-ipx) for a(p)=a(-p). Classically, a bound particle moves to the right during one time interval and to the left during the other so there is no interference of +/-p. The quantum wavefunction retains +/-p interference for all energy levels and so does not portray the full physical information of the bound system i.e. leads to the two delta functions. For high n (energy level), crests and troughs are very narrow compared to the length of the system, approximating dx units of length. Thus, uncertainty in time is only within these tiny crests/troughs, otherwise there is a distinct time position relationship as in classical physics, but the wavefunction W(x) does not show it. How then may the wavefunction be interpreted? We argue the time independent wavefunction, say for a bound state, represents an averaged steady stream picture which is often not the physical picture. For example, a bound particle is not a steady stream average nor is a finite number of photons hitting an interface of media with different indices of refraction/reflection. Nevertheless, the steady stream approach with time removed may be used to solve the problem i.e. ultimately find a one dimensional spatial density (which averages out the original two dimensional probability of exp(ipx), energy levels etc. For instance, the energy levels of a bound system do not depend on following the particle in time. We raise this issue because we think it may have implications on the calculation of entropy in bound single particle quantum systems. In general, a spatial Shannon’s entropy is defined as: - W(x)W(x) ln[W(x)W(x)] (one dimensional problem). W(x) (wavefunction) is real because p/-p pieces interfere in a steady stream picture. A single bound particle, however, is not a steady stream picture. exp(ipx) is a dynamic probability equal to cos(px)+i sin(px) to indicate the direction of motion. Simply because exp(ipx)+exp(-px) removes the complex portion (i.e. for a steady state picture with a(p)=a(-p)) does not mean that this represents the full physical picture especially as energy levels become high and crests/troughs become narrower with respect to the overall system length it seems there is no justification for the steady stream interference picture.. In other words, using a real W(x) in a Shannon’s entropy expression treats one dimensional probability W(x) = bound wavefunction, but this is not the full probability in the picture, we argue. Full probability is two dimensional and demonstrates direction for many energy levels (especially high ones). For a free particle exp(ipx), cos(px) and sin(px) are essentially the same distribution. Thus cos(px)cos(px) describes the probability distribution in x. For W1(x)=Sum p>0 a(p)exp(ipx), Real(W1(x)) is not equal to Imaginary(W1(x)) because one does not have a simple shift of the real distribution to obtain the imaginary one. The real distribution is chosen to represent probability because the interference of exp(ipx), exp(-ipx) terms removes the imaginary piece, but it is removed only on average. If physically exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx) should not interfere, then one may need to take some kind of average of Real(W1(x))Real(W1(x)) and Imaginary(W1(x))Imaginary(W1(x)) and use this in Shannon’s entropy.
In a previous note (1) we considered a free particle entropy based on the real part of the wavefunction exp(ipx) i.e. |cos(px)|. |cos(px|) may be normalized over a certain length, just as exp(ipx) is. The idea is that there exists an uncertainty in space within a wavelength which should be reflected in an entropy expression. As p becomes very large, cos(px) becomes very narrow and has many peaks in L. Thus probability →0 so p ln(p)--> 0 using l’Hopital’s rule. This coincides with a free classical particle having zero entropy. In this note, we revisit arguments presented previously, suggesting that A= -Et+px, a Lorentz invariant and also the free particle classical relativistic and nonrelativistic action for v=x/t We suggested in the past that A is responsible for both the wavelength hbar/p and the time period hbar/E. Here we suggest uncertainty within a time period should be considered together with uncertainty within a wavelength. For instance, recent experiments (2) have shown that one may have quantum interference in time as well as space. Thus there is uncertainty for a free particle in both space and time. We add the entropies for these two. Next, we consider the case of a bound system. Such a system creates a crest-trough pattern (with different heights and widths) for its spatial wavefunction, but E, average energy is constant and there is the free particle type exp(-iEnt). We suggest that the system is characterized by uncertainty in space and time with En being a known constant at each x. This suggests that various free particle p (momentum) values combine to create the wavefunction such that -1/2m d/dx d/dx W/W is average kinetic energy which in turn adds to V(x) to create a constant En. We are thus concerned with uncertainty in time and space and not in momentum. In the limit of high energy values, a crest fits within a tiny dx and prms is essentially the classical p value which is considered certain, even though in quantum mechanics the range of a(p) weights hold for all n (W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx)). Thus we treat a high n limit as being completely certain and not having entropy. This differs from the approach of using C/v(x), where v(x) is velocity given by .5mv(x)v(x)+V(x)=En, as a probability and calculating Shannon’s entropy using this.
In classical physics, a potential V(x) acts on a particle at a location x regardless of its velocity which is taken to be constant within dx (even though the particle accelerates). Thus writing potential energy V(x) at a given x is like taking a snapshot of the particle when it is at x. The snapshot is static and does not indicate the dynamics of the problem as the particle may be moving either to the right or left, which is irrelevant in terms of the exact potential energy and even kinetic energy at point x. A quantum particle moving with constant velocity is described by a two-dimensional dynamic probability exp(ipx), with cos(px) representing a static density and sin(px) a time-shifted density to capture one directional motion such that exp(ipx)exp(-ipx)=1, we argue. V(x), however, only acts on the static density (linked to cos(px) and not sin(px)). Thus it seems that bound state quantum mechanics needs to remove the dynamic pieces of free particle wavefunctions exp(ipx) through interference. One might argue that for wavelengths of the order of the system length one does not know if one has exp(ipx) or exp(-ipx) at an x point, but for high energy levels, wavelengths become small with respect to the system length and yet interference is still present. Thus it seems that for the calculation of energy one requires a static average snapshot of the bound particle. Physically, we argue that the dynamic piece is still present i.e.. if one knocks out a bound particle and it is found in the p momentum state, it is represented by exp(ipx). Thus the purpose of the bound state wavefunction is to facilitate the calculation of average energy which is associated with a static snapshot type of density and not necessarily represent all of the dynamical information in the system i.e. the two dimensionality of each exp(ipx). As a result, the bound wavefunction does not show motion to the right and then to the left in the high energy limit.
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 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).
Classical mechanics usually employs two variables x,t to describe motion in the form of x(t). Derivatives of this function yield velocity, acceleration etc. For a bound system, velocity (momentum) changes from one x to the next, but one does not necessarily need time to describe the scenario as one could use the pair of variables p(x),x instead of x(t),t. An issue which arises is that p(x) has double values as it is positive when the bound particle is moving to the right and negative when it is moving to the left. In such a case, time distinguishes between the two motions which occur at the same spatial point. From the point of view of energy, however, such a degeneracy at x is irrelevant because kinetic energy is pp/2m. Thus, it seems one may remove time from a bound state problem as long as one uses an energy (i.e. energy conservation) picture. As a result, we propose using a p(xi), xi model to describe a bound state with p(xi) (momentum at xi) being different at each xi. In order to calculate average of the absolute value of p at xo we suggest using a Dirac delta function delta(p-p(xo)) i.e. related to {Integral dp p delta(p-p(xo))} . If one expands the delta function in terms of the basis exp(ipx), it seems that quantum mechanics for the bound state arises as a classical steady stream picture in terms of energy conservation, with exp(ipx) representing a steady stream picture of a particle with a constant momentum. We discuss informational probability properties of exp(ipx) which make it the basis of choice.
In (1), we noted that a Gaussian wavefunction may be a solution to the time-independent Schrodinger equation (e.g. the ground state solution of the quantum oscillator) and simultaneously a solution of maximizing spatial Shannon’s entropy - density(x) ln(density(x)) subject to the constraint V(x) xx constant, where density(x) =W*(x)W(x) with W(x) being the wavefunction. In (2), which deals strictly with classical probabilities and the Maxwell-Boltzmann factor n(ei) = exp(-ei/T), we argued that this function is equivalent to: ln(n(ei)) = -ei/T. This in turn is equivalent to the maximization of ln(n(ei)!) with the constraint ei n(ei) which is part of: ln( N!/ Product over i n(ei)!) with the full constraint Sum over i ei n(ei)=Eave. Here n(ei)=N p(ei) where p(ei) is a probability and N a very large number. Thus a function of exp( something) may indicate that “something” * density(x) is a constraint with -density ln(density) being Shannon’s entropy. Quantum mechanics for a bound system yields a real wavefunction W(x) such that density(x)=W(x)W(x)=probability(x). Thus maximization of Shannon’s entropy - density(x) ln (density) subject to a constraint: density(x)B(x) should correspond to a solution for density of exp( B(x)). B(x) as part of the constraint, however, should represent a physical constraint. Thus if there is a solution to the Schrodinger equation of the form exp(.5B(x)) and B(x)density(x) represents the physical constraint in the system, classical maximization of probability solves the quantum problem in such a case. The above ideas may be applied to the quantum oscillator ground state and essentially repeat what is done in (1). We, however, try to generalize them to see if they may apply to a free quantum particle. In this case the probability used is exp(ipx) which is complex. It corresponds to P(x)=exp(ipx)exp(-ipx)=1 which is a uniform distribution which has maximum lack of information.