A Maxwell-Boltzmann gas consists of particles which undergo physical collisions which are associated with the idea of causality, but we argue that reaction balance: e1+e2=e3+e4 and n(e1)n(e2)= n(e3)n(e4) represent steady stream energy-probability conservation and so one need not actually think in terms of direct collisions and causality i.e. one may just as well write: n(e1)n(e2)=n(e1+e2). In the case of quantum mechanics, we argue, as we have done in previous notes, that the free particle form follows from the Lorentz invariant A= -Et+px. In a rest frame, there is energy, but no net momentum. We thus argue for a physical separation of the -Et and px terms. We further suggest that energy is associated with a resonance in time and p momentum with one in space i.e exp(-iEt) and exp(ipx). Given that A=-Et+px is also the relativistic/nonrelativistic classical action, we suggest that these represent probability resonances associated with constant p motion. As a result, given that p is associated with impulse, we suggest that an interaction means forming a new resonance i.e. p1->p2 implies exp(ip1 x)--> exp(ip2 x). As a result, interactions take place in length regions of hbar/p. If this value is very small, as it is in the classical world, then it appears that the resonances occur at points. In the quantum world, it is the opposite. If one wishes to treat quantum mechanics in a statistical manner, one needs to establish an energy-probability balance. Even in classical mechanics, impulses occur that change p, but now one has resonances which occur over a wavelength long piece of space. Furthermore a given p may be anywhere, so one thinks in terms of a(p)exp(ipx) probabilities. We try to show that a probability-energy balance is equivalent to the Schrodinger equation. Thus we argue that quantum mechanics uses a p-probability-energy balance for the time-independent Schrodinger equation and so does not necessarily address causality and physical dynamics.
A Maxwell-Boltzmann gas consists of particles which undergo physical collisions which are associated with the idea of causality, but we argue that reaction balance: e1+e2=e3+e4 and n(e1)n(e2)= n(e3)n(e4) represent steady stream energy-probability conservation and so one need not actually think in terms of direct collisions and causality i.e. one may just as well write: n(e1)n(e2)=n(e1+e2). In the case of quantum mechanics, we argue, as we have done in previous notes, that the free particle form follows from the Lorentz invariant A= -Et+px. In a rest frame, there is energy, but no net momentum. We thus argue for a physical separation of the -Et and px terms. We further suggest that energy is associated with a resonance in time and p momentum with one in space i.e exp(-iEt) and exp(ipx). Given that A=-Et+px is also the relativistic/nonrelativistic classical action, we suggest that these represent probability resonances associated with constant p motion. As a result, given that p is associated with impulse, we suggest that an interaction means forming a new resonance i.e. p1->p2 implies exp(ip1 x)--> exp(ip2 x). As a result, interactions take place in length regions of hbar/p. If this value is very small, as it is in the classical world, then it appears that the resonances occur at points. In the quantum world, it is the opposite. If one wishes to treat quantum mechanics in a statistical manner, one needs to establish an energy-probability balance. Even in classical mechanics, impulses occur that change p, but now one has resonances which occur over a wavelength long piece of space. Furthermore a given p may be anywhere, so one thinks in terms of a(p)exp(ipx) probabilities. We try to show that a probability-energy balance is equivalent to the Schrodinger equation. Thus we argue that quantum mechanics uses a p-probability-energy balance for the time-independent Schrodinger equation and so does not necessarily address causality and physical dynamics.
In previous notes, we argued that one could describe elastic two particle collisions, even in Newtonian mechanics, in a classical statistical manner. In particular, we argued that one could introduce a probability which depends on E,p, but at the same time has the same weight (in a sense) for any free particle. Product probabilities would be linked with a uniform distribution in the sense that exp(-iE1)exp(-iE2)= exp(-iE3)exp(-iE4) if E1+E2=E3+E4 and a similar expression for momentum. If one respects the special relativistic invariant -Et+px, then a possible solution is exp(-iEt+ipx), but even though this yields the free particle wavefunction (probability), this does not explain quantum mechanics. These are simply ideas of classical probability theory with the enforced special relativistic invariant -Et+px. Here, we argue that the real feature leading to quantum mechanics (the idea of hbar/p and hbar/E) arises from the notion of inertia (which we have argued in previous notes also gives rise to spin). We argue that a single force (inertia) in a rest frame becomes two independent interaction notions, E and p as well as creating x’ as a running variable. Thus, mo,t and E,t’ and p,x’ are intertwined. We suggest that there must be a physical mechanism which keeps these two concepts E,p independent and so one cannot simply rely on x=vt. Given the Lorentz invariant and the classical notion of probability exp(-iEt+ipx), one must go one step further and postulate that there are independent fluctuations in t’ and x’ in such a calculation such that hbar/E and hbar/p emerge. We argue that this is a key feature of quantum mechanics and that it does not immediately arise from exp(-iEt+ipx) if one only considers x=vt. One is forced to allow x,t to fluctuate independently which leads to a fluctuation in mocc in the rest frame as well. We argue that this feature is actually associated with special relativity as it allows a single force inertia to manifest itself as two independent interaction quantities E,p. As a result, we suggest that one may obtain exp(-iEt+ipx) without any notion of probability, but only by postulating the existence of a physical mechanism (fluctuation of x’,t’ or t in the rest frame) which keeps E,p independent because -Et+px does not ensure their independence if one only considers x=vt. One may then interpret exp(-iEt+ipx) as having the form of a classical probability which respects special relativity.
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.
We have argued in previous notes that C(T) exp(-ei/T) (the Maxwell-Boltzmann probability) and exp(-iEt) exp(ipx) (the free particle quantum probability called a wavefunction) have the same informational structure in that product probabilities for a given E1=Ei+Ej for the MB case and Ei,pi and Ej, pj for the quantum case lead to uniform distributions, i.e. ones with minimal information if energy and momentum are conserved. We suggest here that the root for this may be same. We have argued in previous notes that dp/dt = Force cannot have dt be infinitesimally small. This means that there exists a scale at which dt is not 0 or even tiny. We also suggested that the force (even though obeying action-reaction in collisions) may strike at some probabilistic time within dt. We then used special relativity to find that dt =hbar/E and dp=hbar/p. A probability which demonstrates these gradations is exp(-iEt+ipx) (and also Lorentz invariant). This is akin to the notion that p(e1)p(e2)=p(e3)p(e4) and p(p1)p(p2) = p(p3)p(p4) (one dimension for simplicity). In other words, the stochasticity introduced is one of a uniform distribution for product probabilities. One could obtain the same result by starting with this assumption and then suggesting Lorentz invariance. We suggest that this quantum uniform distribution product probability also holds for the Maxwell-Boltzmann case. There, the probability is not complex because p(ei) must be a real number linked to the number of particles with ei. Nevertheless, in an elastic collision of ei and ej, we suggest that the quantum result (and even dp/dt=F) suggest that there is stochasticity in x and t and that one cannot deterministically predict the outcome. Any outcome which conserves energy and momentum has the same likelihood. We suggest that it is the quantum mechanical assumption which is identical to the ideal gas case (which uses quantum mechanical gas molecules albeit at high temperatures). The high temperatures mean that one can only use the conservation laws and the associated stochasticity. We suggest that the stochasticity of interaction inherent in quantum mechanics carries over to collisions in the classical gas. It is not simply that one is approximating the situation in a gas by throwing away information. If one were to try to be as deterministic as possible at some scale (the quantum one) stochasticity arises and there is no full determinism in a collision. The best one can do is use conservation of momentum and sometimes conservation of energy in certain situations like high temperature. If this is the case, one may ask: Why is it possible to perform deterministic classical calculations such as particles bouncing off walls or mirrors or interacting with a potential V(x) in a completely deterministic manner. We suggest that these involve constrained interactions, i.e. the wall or V(x) is associated with a huge mass compared to the particle, unlike in a collision of two identical particles. Action-reaction in the former case is associated with the large mass and so always the same approximately 0 kinetic energy and hence no p(ei)p(ej) =p(ek)p(el), but in the latter, with a mass the same size and so the stochasticity may be seen clearly.
For a Maxwell-Boltzmann gas (MB) it is known that T (temperature) is a statistical parameter related to the average energy. It appears in f(ei) = C exp(-ei/T) so T has the same units as ei, a single particle energy. If T increases, ei increases identically if ei/T is treated as constant. Thinking in terms of ei=pp/2m, this means the momentum spread (i.e. variance of the Gaussian increases) and one expects entropy to increase In (1) we argued that exp(-ei/T) for an MB gas and exp(ipx) for a quantum free particle (constant p), follow from the same statistical rule P(a1)P(a2)=P(a1+a2), but ei is a scalar and p a vector. Furthermore exp(ipx) is associated with spatial invariance and the generator of translations d/dx. In this note, we try to argue that a constant p may act as a statistical parameter just as T, although in this case hbar/p has the behaviour of a length i.e. the wavelength. If p increases (just like T is increased), the wavelength decreases meaning there are more peaks in a fixed length or more entropy, we argue. Thus there seems to be a statistical mechanical similarity to increasing T for an MB gas and to increasing p for a single free quantum particle. The association of x and p in exp(ipx) has implications, not only for the resolution of x space, but the increased entropy suggested by more peaks of cos(px). In addition, this means more peak places for impulses to occur. Thus a large p not only represents a large impulse, but is associated with more peak points for this impulse to be delivered and more entropy. In (2) we argued that the humps of cos(px) encode information about the impulse/force used to create p and which may be delivered if p hits an object. Thus there is a somewhat unusual relationship between p and x that one does not find in Newtonian mechanics, but has its roots in special relativity i.e. in the Lorentz invariant -Et+px. We suggest that just like exp(-V(x)/T) in an MB gas means that for a large force=-dV/dx, exp(-V/T) changes rapidly in x, a large p, associated with a large force should also imply that the humps in exp(ipx) rise (and fall) sharply, thus leading to sharp peaks. Thus sharp peaks are indicative of high internal force and increased entropy for a free particle exp(ipx), we argue.
In Part 1, we argued that the Lorentz invariant -Et+px contains E and p which are physically different types of interaction variables. We argued that nature must somehow keep E and p independent in -Et+px (if nature also respects this Lorentz invariant). As a result, we suggested a math function exp(-iEt+ipx) which actually acts like a probability in terms of products and ensures conservation of E and p. Here, we wish to consider the situation from a different viewpoint. Like in Part 1, we do not postulate a priori any probability. Rather, we argue that there exist interactions in nature which conserve both E and p (elastic collisions) and that these two interaction variables are associated with different physical processes. For example, the notion of action-reaction is enough to see conservation of momentum, but conservation of energy is an independent process. In other words, E is like an enhanced inertia (mo and v), while p is like a moving inertia. An interaction which conserves both is complicated, yet we argue that the notion of the Lorentz invariant -Et+px should still hold for two interacting particles. For a single particle, the center-of-mass moves as x=vt and so one would expect that t and x in -Et+px are correlated. If one has two particles coming together to interact, then by conservation of E,p one has E1+E2 and p1+p2 (one dimension), but x and t for the two particles should be the same and it seems that one is not concerned about x=vt. Furthermore, a given outcome of the interaction E3+E4 and p3+p4 must also be linked to -Et+px and there must be conservation of total E and p. Thus: -(-E3-E4+E1+E2) t + (-p3-p4+p1+p2) x = 0. This suggests mathematically that t and x are independent variables in direct contrast to x=vt. Furthermore, the system must somehow ensure that x and t are independent for any Ei,Ej and pi,pk such that Ei+Ej=E1+E2 and pi+pj = p1+p2 as this is all the information that the Lorentz invariant -Et+px displays. Given that E and p are linked with different interactions, we suggest that there must exist an a priori property of a particle which allows for the above considerations. This would then explain how any Ei+Ej=E1+E2 and pi+pj = p1+p2 holds. In Part 1, we argued that this condition may occur if a particle is associated with fluctuating x and t values in terms of interactions given by exp(-iEt+ipx). The center-of-mass still moves as x=vt, but in an interaction it is the interaction process which is key, not the particle center-of-mass. One requires a description of such an interaction which can handle both E and p and is consistent with whatever information special relativity allows. We suggest that the exp(-iEt+ipx) is such a description, but that it carries the notion of periodicity in space and time and that this periodicity is then linked with E and p. This then becomes associated with Planck’s constant to link periodicity to E,p.
Both quantum bound state equilibrium and classical statistical mechanical equilibrium are characterized by d/dt partial density(x,t)=0. For a quantum particle, W(x,t)=exp(-iEt)W(x) and d(x,t)=W*W. Density is linked to fluid flow and arguments of pressure balance such that the overall average fluid flow is zero are made. This pressure-force balance is common in classical statistical mechanics and used to calculate the variation of density with x i.e. obtain a differential equation with d d(x,t) /dt partial. A similar balance equation is used in (1) as the authors try to derive the Schrodinger equation using a fluid dynamical approach. In this note, we try to argue that one may think of the two equilibria in terms of an energy quantity which remains constant throughout space. This energy quantity depends directly on the type of interactions in the system at any point x. For a classical ideal gas, balanced two body time reversal scattering represents the interaction. V(x), a potential, does not change this fundamental manner of interacting at any given point, although it does affect density. As a result the energy related constant at each x is T, related to average kinetic energy. We argue that this already points to the dominant type of interaction creating the statistical interaction i.e. one that depends only on p in interactions which conserve kinetic energy. This “happens” to be equivalent to maximizing Shannon’s entropy, but we argue this is particular to this scenario in the sense that not all interacting systems will have this equivalence. In other words, we argue that one must be careful with regards to the maximization of entropy as a fundamental rule. In particular, we consider the single particle bound quantum state. The interaction exists between the particle and the potential V(x), but one may consider a distribution of free particle momentum probabilities i.e W(x)=wavefunction = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). The form exp(ipx) comes from separate arguments as is discussed in the note, but the point is that there are no two body scattering reactions occurring at a given x, neither is there acceleration from on x to another (except for a vrms mathematical quantity). Nevertheless the “free particle” exp(ipx) interacts at each x with V(x). As a result of this interaction, one has free particles exp(ipx) which are no longer associated with pp/2m, but rather with an Eave which is a constant for every p. In other words the identity of exp(ipx) is unusual because it is linked to exp(ipx) and pp/2m, but also to Vk1 a(p-k1), Vk2 a(p-k2) etc where V(x)=Sum over k Vk exp(ikx). Thus each x point is associated with a constant Eave and this defines the equilibrium. (It is also equivalent to conservation of energy at each x.) In such a case, one does not maximize entropy to find a(p) values. In the two cases, the common point seems to be considering the interactions at each x and finding a constant “energy” type quantity which does not vary with x. This we argue appears to define equilibrium for both the classical statistical and quantum bound states. Instead of considering density which does not change in time at each x, there is constant energy which not only does not change in time, but has a constant value at each x which seems to be an alternative rule.