Classical mechanics is often concerned with the variables x and t, especially their relationship x(t) in describing a moving particle. Change in p(momentum)= Integral Force(x) dx and Change in KE =Integral dt Force(t) also appear, however, and each of these integrate out one of these variables, so p is linked with x only and KE with t only. Furthermore there is information loss as KE=pp/2m is the same whether the particle moves to the left or right and p=m1v1=m2v2 so with time gone one does not know the velocity. The association of KE with t for a free particle and p with x may be made stronger if one thinks in terms of probabiliites i.e. P(p1,x)P(p2,x) = P(p1+p2,x) and P(p,x1)P(p,x2)=P(p,x1+x2). We argue this leads to P(x,p)=exp(ipx) and a similar result of exp(iEt) or exp(-iEt). One may then note the similarity of these two terms px and +/-Et with the free particle action=Lagrangian*t = -Et+px which holds for both a relativistic and nonrelativistic particle, where v=x/t. Does the loss of information appear in nature? The (p,x) loss i.e. p=m1v1=m2v2 does in a two-slit experiment whose solution does not require time and is calculated using exp(ipx). Thus we argue that interactions are based on p and do have a loss of information. A bound quantum state, however, has interactions with V(x) and so exp(ipx) with its information loss should be present. A bound state, classical or quantum mechanical, however, has the same Etotal at each x, so (Etotal, t) is again a pair with x gone and loss of information means that an energy description (i.e. the time-independent Schrodinger equation) does not distinguish between forward and backwards motion. This is not needed to calculate energy values, but physically this distinct motion may exist, especially for high energy values.
Classical mechanics is often concerned with the variables x and t, especially their relationship x(t) in describing a moving particle. Change in p(momentum)= Integral Force(x) dx and Change in KE =Integral dt Force(t) also appear, however, and each of these integrate out one of these variables, so p is linked with x only and KE with t only. Furthermore there is information loss as KE=pp/2m is the same whether the particle moves to the left or right and p=m1v1=m2v2 so with time gone one does not know the velocity. The association of KE with t for a free particle and p with x may be made stronger if one thinks in terms of probabiliites i.e. P(p1,x)P(p2,x) = P(p1+p2,x) and P(p,x1)P(p,x2)=P(p,x1+x2). We argue this leads to P(x,p)=exp(ipx) and a similar result of exp(iEt) or exp(-iEt). One may then note the similarity of these two terms px and +/-Et with the free particle action=Lagrangian*t = -Et+px which holds for both a relativistic and nonrelativistic particle, where v=x/t. Does the loss of information appear in nature? The (p,x) loss i.e. p=m1v1=m2v2 does in a two-slit experiment whose solution does not require time and is calculated using exp(ipx). Thus we argue that interactions are based on p and do have a loss of information. A bound quantum state, however, has interactions with V(x) and so exp(ipx) with its information loss should be present. A bound state, classical or quantum mechanical, however, has the same Etotal at each x, so (Etotal, t) is again a pair with x gone and loss of information means that an energy description (i.e. the time-independent Schrodinger equation) does not distinguish between forward and backwards motion. This is not needed to calculate energy values, but physically this distinct motion may exist, especially for high energy values.
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.
A classical bound state does indicate the direction of motion if one only considers kinetic energy pp/2m. It is the vector quantities, p and x, which indicate direction. In quantum mechanics, a free particle interaction probability (for impulse hits) is directional, i.e. exp(ipx) not= exp(-ipx). Unless one has a single value of pp/2m, KE+= sum over p>0 a(p)exp(ipx) pp/2m / Sum over p>0 a(p)exp(ipx) is not equal to KE- even if a(p)=a(-p). In order to use conservation of energy in quantum mechanics, one is forced to consider both a(p)exp(ipx) +a(p)exp(-ipx) with a(p)=a(-p) which is the correct statistical weighting for a bound state. One may note that exp(ipx) is a probability for interaction and is separate from x=p/m t even though the notion of this velocity is tied to the fact that nonrelativistic kinetic energy is pp/2m. As a result, one must use an average scenario for calculating kinetic energy which seems to be tied to an ensemble average. Such a notion should hold for all energy levels. If one considers the classical limit, then one has p(x)p(x)/2m in a tiny dx. If one were to simply use 1/sqrt(p)exp(ip(x) x)/sqrt(dx) in dx, then Integral W*W dx in dx = C/p. The relative weight of two adjacent dx regions is: p1/ p2 = p1 / (p1+dp). This is equivalent to probabilities proportional to dt= dx/v, where p=mv. Thus, the area represented by W*W captures the number of possible interactions in dx if attempted hits have a fixed period. We argue, however, that given the bound state conservation recipe, one must use a(p) (exp(ipx)+exp(-ipx)) to describe a dx (with p=p(x)), even in the high energy limit. exp(ipx) is simply an interaction pattern (and is a probability) and so if the particle is bound, the correct statistical thing to do for an ensemble seems to be to combine exp(ipx) with exp(-ipx). We then show that quantum mechanics lowers the number of interactions in an area with increased speed more than the classical case. In particular, we find instead of p/(p+dp), 1- dp/p - 2dp/(pp).
We try to consider free particle and single bound state quantum mechanics from the viewpoint of classical physics. We first assume that a free particle moves as x=vt. Secondly, we assume that dx and dt cannot be 0 as in Newtonian mechanics, but must be finite. This begs the question: How does one measure dx and dt? If one can measure a particle at a given x and t, then dx→0, dt→0. Thus, finite dx, dt means that a given p=constant and pp/2m=kinetic energy (nonrelativistic) interact with a force over a finite dx. In other words, one does not know where the interaction occurs within dx. As long as the free particle moves without interacting, then x=vt and there is no interest in any dx or interactions. For example, one may measure very large x and t ranges. Even if there are dx and dt effects at the start and end points, these are small compared to the large x and t values. As a result, one has a F(x,p) probability within dx, which repeats itself for the next dx (i.e. is periodic), where F is a probability for a p impulse hit at x within dx. At the same time, the particle moves with x=vt it seems within dx. In general, one might then think that F(x,p) and x=vt are decoupled. In previous notes, we have argued that one way to couple F(x,p) and x=vt is through special relativity, i.e. A = -Et+px. X and t values used would presumably satisfy x=vt, but for any x,t one has x+hbar/p and t+hbar/E as solutions yielding the same A value and so might consider dx= hbar/p and dt=hbar/E. The question we ask here is whether one may arrive at this conclusion without using special relativity. The answer seems to be that one can if one suggests that F(x,p) must contain information making it consistent with x=vt, i.e. with every x and t point having the same weight. Clearly, however, each x,t do not have the same weight within dx and dt, but are rather governed by F(x,p). This means, however, that F(x,-p) also represents a probability distribution and so if one has F(x,p)F(x,-p) there is no momentum at a given x point. In such a case, the distribution within dx must disappear and one must have a uniform distribution. This holds even if F(x,p) has the same dx value for any p. Thus, F(x,p)F(x,-p) = constant and must be periodic in x. This implies that F(x,p) = 1/F(x,-p) for constant=1. Given that F(x,p) =0 at the initial and final points of dx, then F(x,-p) = infinite at these points and that is not allowable. Thus, one is forced to use complex variables and try exp(i g(p) x). If g(p) is a function of p (i.e. not a constant), then conservation of momentum implies that exp(i g(p1) x) exp(i g(p2) x) = exp(i g(p1+p2) x), suggesting exp(ipx). What, however, if g(p) = constant? In such a case, one has issues creating an average kinetic energy: ( Sum over p a(p) exp(i constant x) pp/2m) / (Sum over p a(p) exp(i constant x) ((1)) This leads to a kinetic energy which does not depend on x and cannot be used with V(x) in a conservation of energy equation. Thus, we choose exp(ipx). Note: there is no reason to choose a(p,x) because the physics of finite dx and dt is restricted to exp(i constant x). Finally, we try to explain why the same dx=hbar/p and dt=hbar/E together with x=vt follow from special relativity.
Newton’s second law dp/dt = F(x)=-dV/dx may be written in terms of x alone i.e. dp/dx v(x) = -dV/dx or 1/(2m) d/dx pp = -dV/dx leading to the idea of kinetic energy pp/2m and potential energy V(x). In (1) we argued that there is velocity, rest mass mo, and momentum in quantum mechanics. A free particle, however, does not undergo smooth acceleration as in classical mechanics, and we argued there exists a momentum space wave exp(ipx) accompanying the moving particle. In such a scenario, force is considered to be probabilistic momentum hits of the form Vk exp(ikx) leading to a free particle momentum distribution W(x)= Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx). Both of these expressions involve interference due to momentum waves which do not track a particle in time. A mass flux mov or energy flux p=Ev relativistically seems to be the main consideration. Nevertheless, summing Vkexp(ikx) over k to obtain V(x) yields a function varying in x alone. This is a kind of average based on interference and Sum k Vk exp(ikx) is an average linked to momentum hits. We speculate that average momentum hits i.e. -d/dx V(x) are linked to momentum flux changes. In other words, even though an impulse is based on p and does not distinguish v i.e. p=m1v1=m2v2, momentum flux is velocity dependent and appears for an average momentum hit i.e. -dV/dx. In such a case (pave+dpave)(vave + dv ave) = 2 pave dv(ave) . This expression, however, contains both forward and backward motion which is part of quantum mechanics. Moving to an average picture seems to introduce time and direction i.e one uses pave d v(ave). This is already a change from a quantum to a classical scenario albeit for averages (which have not been specifically defined). Thus we consider pave dv(ave). If this is the case, then: d/dx pave 1/m space = -dV/dx or 1/(2m) pave pave = -d/dx V(x). Instead of treating pave pave as two separate averages one considers pave=prms or pavepave=<pp>. Thus the quantum bound picture (at any energy level) becomes a classical type of scenario which includes time and velocity. Note that for a two slit interference pattern, one does not need velocity and time because the interaction with the potentials from both slits is based on exp(ipx). One does not even need the form of the potential. Interference is the same for p=m1v1=m2v2 (even though the process takes place during different time intervals, the pattern is not affected). In other words, we argue that Newton’s second law might follow from a picture of momentum hits in which a flux i.e. p=mov is treated as a quantity which in an average scenario leads to a second flux i.e. an average momentum flux which reintroduces direction, time and velocity.. This is somewhat like a hydrodynamics scenario.
In physics (including classical physics), conservation of momentum is always considered, but one must be more careful with conservation of energy as it may include forms like sound etc. As a result, there is a tendency to focus on conservation of momentum all of the time, and conservation of particle energy only in elastic collisions. In addition to this, one may think of a particle striking a target, in which case two equal momentum (but different energies due to different v speed and mo rest mass) cause the same impact. In the case of an interaction with a potential, however, it is strictly energy considerations which are important classically, i.e one uses p dot p /2m + V(x) = E. Knowing momentum without rest mass is not sufficient. One may consider it unusual that one may consider two different scenarios, one which focuses only on momentum (impulse) or conservation of momentum in collisions while only energy is the focus in classical bound states or motion in V(x). Given the classical focus on momentum, imagine that one wishes to describe all free particles with different momenta as a uniform probability distribution such that a product of two probabilities for p1,p2 is the same as for p3,p4 if p1+p2=p3+p4. (We use 1-dimension for simplicity.). One cannot use P= 1/n because p is absent and n->infinite. In one sense, all particles must have the same probability, but at the same time must contain extra information related to p for the conservation of p part of the problem. The notion of a uniform distribution is independent of conservation of momentum, hence of p momentum. Conservation of momentum requires an explicit presence of p. As a result, there seems to be a paradox. One may, however, resolve this paradox by arguing that a probability is a mathematical way of presenting a subset of the information present. If one argues for a uniform probability, then it does not need to contain p, and one would have 1 as an unnormalized probability for any free particle p. A different probability (representing a different subset of information) which respects all free particles as having the same weight, but includes p can also be constructed, namely exp(i C p). C is a constant introduced for unit issues. In this case, the modulus gives all free particle probabilities with p the same weight, but the presence of p allows one to have conservation of momentum. Given that momentum is the key variable that is conserved in classical physics, one should be satisfied with exp(i C p). One might argue that there is no need to consider energy E. We note, however, that if one has p, E1 and -p, E2 in a frame, then in a frame moving with -v, one has gp+gvE1= p1’ and p2’ = -gp + gvE2. Adding yields gv(E1+E2) and so energy automatically appears and cannot be discarded. Furthermore for p, E1 and -p, E2, exp(i C 0) is exp(i C gv(E1+E2)) as seen in the moving frame and so one is forced to consider conservation of energy together with momentum and include both p and E in the more detailed probability. In other words, special relativity automatically links p and E in a 4-vector, leading to the idea that both are important. We argue that one cannot simply consider exp(i C p) due to special relativity. Both E and p must be considered together and this is a key idea, we argue, because if one wishes to have a Lorentz invariant probability, it must be in E and p, i.e. -Et+px. Instead of having a probability for an interaction with p given by exp(i C p) , one has exp(-iEt+ipx) and we argue that this must have the same value in all frames for a particular interaction. One may note that E and p are, on the one hand, separated allowing for impulse hit versus E related interactions, but that overall the probability for interaction includes both and it is the full -Et+ipx which must be invariant. This further suggests that if one does not artificially force an interaction to occur at the center-of-mass, then x,t and x+hbar/p, t+hbar/E are equally good points for the interaction. We argue that there is no need to force x=vt because exp(-iEt+ipx) * exp(iEt+ipx) already shows that one has uniformity, not only for any p,E, but also for any x, t, as there are now four variables. Thus, there is no reason to enforce x=vt in exp(-iEt+ipx), when considering an interaction, we argue. This means that one has two possible interactions at different x,t values, i.e. x,t and x+hbar/p, t+hbar/E. If one is unable to follow the interaction in time, but may follow it in space as in the case of 2-slits about hbar/p apart or for a potential V(x), then one may use the exp(ipx) part of the interaction probability piece by itself. Thus, we argue that special relativity does not allow one to treat p independently of E. For example, for p values that are the same in one frame, but have E1, E2, will be different in another frame. One must consider E and p together and so instead of creating a probability for p alone, one must create one for E,p and then impose Lorentz invariance which leads to different x,t pairs yielding the same probability value for an interaction, i.e. free particle quantum mechanics.
We have argued in Parts 1 and 2, that the free particle quantum form exp(-iEt+ipx), which we call a complex probability, arises from special relativity in order to allow for conservation of energy and momentum (in an elastic collision). One may see from single particle bound states how exp(-iEt) plays the part of a binding energy. We have noted in Parts 1 and 2, that exp(-iEt+ipx) follows from the Lorentz invariant -Et+px, but that one does not consider the deterministic x=vt equation which applies to the center-of-mass, but rather treats t and x as independent variables which force the independence of E and p (two different interaction variables) and also force separate E and p conservation. The question becomes: How is it possible to have x,t play two such different roles in special relativity? Here we try to answer this question. We argue that special relativity is based on determinism, i.e. x=vt. One may create a Lorentz transformation for a particle with rest mass mo at x=0 with t, a running variable. As seen from a frame moving with -v, one has x’=vt’. In other words, a separate x’,t’ is associated with each v. In Newtonian mechanics, it is possible to have mov1 and mov2 in the same frame (i.e. a frame with a ruler and clock), but in special relativity, each mo in the rest frame maps to a different x1’,t’ and x2’,t2’. This, however, seems to lead to a contradiction. If one considers two particles p1,E1 and p2,E2 (one dimensional motion) which elastically collide, then before the collision, they may be thought of as a composite particle (for more than a single x,t point) with energy E1+E2 and momentum p1+p2. Given the validity of special relativity, we argue that one may associate a Lorentz invariant -(E1+E2)t + (p1+p2) x with this composite particle. Furthermore, any outcome Ei+Ej = E1+E2 and pi+pj = p1+p2 would satisfy this same invariant. At this point there is no contradiction. The contradiction arises if one considers a single t and x for a composite particle, while internally there exist t1’,x1’ and t2’, x2’. The composite particle, in terms of special relativity, is not compatible with each -E’t’+p’x. The energies and momenta, however, add for each particle (in conservation equations) and so we argue that one should have a relativistically compatible approach which allows one to link each particle to a composite particle and see conservation of E and p. We note that it is precisely x=vt for each particle which leads to x1’,t1’ and x2’,t2’ and so argue that if one gives up this notion of determinism for x and t and introduces independent x, t values (fluctuations), then one can indeed retain the -Et+px form for each particle and use it to create composite particles. This seems to give rise to an AND situation which does not exist for both p,x and E,t in the deterministic relativistic approach. In that approach, one can only think of p’s and E’s adding separately, without any linking of x’s and t’s. In the fluctuation approach, it is possible to have the same x and t fluctuation points for each particle. We argue that it is this kind of thinking which leads to the probabilistic form exp(-iEt+ipx) which still respects the Lorentz invariant form and at the same time allows for conservation of E,p with the same t,x fluctuation points allowed. x=vt does not allow one to combine x1’,t1’ and x2’,t2’ for a composite particle because these may coincide for only one x,t point and one wishes to describe a composite particle with an x,t which exists over more than one x,t. This is why we suggest the physical fluctuation scenario which exists together with x=vt. x=vt describes the deterministic motion of the center-of-mass, while exp(-iEt+ipx) describes probabilistic hits in x and energy in t. It is special relativity which forces one to associate time fluctuations with E and spatial ones with p. As a result, we argue that special relativity gives rise to both probabilistic and deterministic versions, both of which respect the form -Et+px. The deterministic version is linked with x=vt center-of-mass motion, while exp(-iEt+ipx) represents probabilistic appearances of E in t and p in x, i.e. there is a spatial probability for impulse hit delivery.