In Part I, we noted that a photon number balance equation , which is equivalent to an energy balance equation, written in terms of fluxes describes all of the information in a photon steady state reflection/refraction problem in one dimension. We also pointed out that one equation cannot solve for two unknowns and suggested that because all information is contained in the classical photon count equation, one may break it into two equations (quantum balance equations for probability and average impulse) in order to solve the problem. Thus the two quantum equations are needed to solve the problem, but collapse into the classical conservation of photon number equation. In this note, we argue that in classical mechanics there are two different, but consistent descriptions of force acting on a particle. The first is impulse Integral dt F = delta p where p is momentum. Two particles with the same momentum, but different velocities, create the same physical impulse. In other words, time is removed (integrated out) in this picture. An equivalent formalism is to write dt = dx/v or F dx = v dp. This form breaks the degeneracy of p’s with different velocities. In other words, time is important. Thus we argue that at the classical level there are two equivalent formalisms. The impulse one does not consider time, while the work-kinetic energy one does. Both are legitimate. For the reflection-refraction of photons in one dimension, both formalisms should apply and lead to consistent results as do the impulse and kinetic energy-work approaches. The latter uses time and is equivalent to three ideas: photon number conservation, energy conservation and pressure conservation, all three being associated with time. The concept of impulse, however, suggests that one should be able to consider space in terms of impulse alone and not time i.e. not velocity. This forces one to introduce a complex probability associated with impulse hits i.e. exp(ipx). This probability and its corresponding average impulse balance yield two independent equations, while the photon count conservation only supplies one. Thus the problem needs to be solved using impulse formalism, even though it is completely consistent with count conservation. The form exp(ipx) leads to new physics (when compared with classical physics) as it suggests interference pattern results.
In Part I, we noted that a photon number balance equation , which is equivalent to an energy balance equation, written in terms of fluxes describes all of the information in a photon steady state reflection/refraction problem in one dimension. We also pointed out that one equation cannot solve for two unknowns and suggested that because all information is contained in the classical photon count equation, one may break it into two equations (quantum balance equations for probability and average impulse) in order to solve the problem. Thus the two quantum equations are needed to solve the problem, but collapse into the classical conservation of photon number equation. In this note, we argue that in classical mechanics there are two different, but consistent descriptions of force acting on a particle. The first is impulse Integral dt F = delta p where p is momentum. Two particles with the same momentum, but different velocities, create the same physical impulse. In other words, time is removed (integrated out) in this picture. An equivalent formalism is to write dt = dx/v or F dx = v dp. This form breaks the degeneracy of p’s with different velocities. In other words, time is important. Thus we argue that at the classical level there are two equivalent formalisms. The impulse one does not consider time, while the work-kinetic energy one does. Both are legitimate. For the reflection-refraction of photons in one dimension, both formalisms should apply and lead to consistent results as do the impulse and kinetic energy-work approaches. The latter uses time and is equivalent to three ideas: photon number conservation, energy conservation and pressure conservation, all three being associated with time. The concept of impulse, however, suggests that one should be able to consider space in terms of impulse alone and not time i.e. not velocity. This forces one to introduce a complex probability associated with impulse hits i.e. exp(ipx). This probability and its corresponding average impulse balance yield two independent equations, while the photon count conservation only supplies one. Thus the problem needs to be solved using impulse formalism, even though it is completely consistent with count conservation. The form exp(ipx) leads to new physics (when compared with classical physics) as it suggests interference pattern results.
In (1), we argued that classically there are two pictures. The impulse picture delta p = Integral dt F does not distinguish between different velocities if p is the same. In other words, p=m1v1=m2v2 (so time is removed) and v1 and v2 create the same impulse (and quantum mechanically the same interference/diffraction pattern) even though v1 and v2 are physical and different. The second classical picture is the kinetic energy-work one which depends explicitly on time i.e. v dp = Fdx. The two pictures are consistent, but for the one dimensional reflection-refraction problem, a photon count and photon energy balance equation based on time are not independent. Thus one must go to the time-removed impulse picture in order to have two equations, based on the probability exp(ipx), in order to solve the problem. We concluded in (1) that an impulse picture with time removed is necessary to describe interactions in a quantum system in a steady state scenario. Thus this picture should be applied to a bound state. A quantum bound state, however, makes use of a potential V(x) which is associated classically with a kinetic energy at x. Kinetic energy depends on time so how is this described in the impulse picture? We argue that one creates an average of pp based on the impulse probability exp(ipx) a(p) (a(p) is a weight for p) which has time removed. It is the impulse probability exp(ipx) which allows for interference to occur. As a result, <pp> does not have time present and may include p and -p values which classically would occur during different time intervals. Once <pp> is computed in the time-removed picture, however, one divides by 1/2m (in the nonrelativistic case) to create kinetic energy. Thus prms(x), a mathematical average, may be associated with the idea of motion in space and time. pmrs(x), however, may not be considered physical as it is the impulses and exp(ipx) which are physical. As argued in (1), however, classically the two pictures should be consistent. As a result, for high energy levels, the description of <pp> in terms of an impulse picture which does not include time, but then adds 1/2m at the end should be equivalent to a picture in which a particle moves either to the left or right. We suggest that at high energy levels, one may actually assign prms(x) as a physical quantity within a tiny dx and follow the particle in time. Even in the time-removed impulse picture, there is velocity i.e. motion in time. It is just not used to calculate interaction averages in a steady state scenario. We suggest that to move from the quantum picture to the classical, one switches formalisms i.e drops the impulse- time removed picture and uses the time dependent motion in one direction. These two pictures are consistent at the classical level i.e. the classical time picture is a good approximation to the detailed impulse time removed picture which is now occurring in tiny dx regions.
Newtonian mechanics deals with smoothness in time and space through x(t) where the “details” occur within dx and dt which tend to zero. Thus there are no discontinuities in x and t. We have argued that the quantum free particle wavefunction pieces exp(-iEt) and exp(ipx) deal with discontinuities and that smoothness is due to a “modulus” of two dimensional probability e.g. exp(ipx)exp(-ipx) which yields 1 or determinism. Both exp(-iEt) and exp(ipx) contain finite measures in time and space, namely hbar/E and hbar/p and so there may be discontinuities. For example, exp(ipx) contains probability cos(px) and sin(px) within a wavelength so x=vt is only an average type of motion. Thus using exp(ipx) in a problem may result in time discontinuities because the particle is not moving as x=vt within a wavelength. In Part I we examined one-dimensional reflection/refraction of light from an interface of two media with n1=1 and n2>n1. We concluded that the quantum solution of this problem involves two equations, one linked to probabilities and the other to impulse. Multiplying the two equations together (with a special grouping, namely a spatial grouping) yields a single equation which may either be interpreted as a pressure balance equation. Thus one starts with two equations which are both grouped in time, but with the second demonstrating vector directions and obtain a single equation which is only grouped in space (which is linked with spatial grouping). By rearranging this equation, one may obtain a time grouping i.e. energy conservation equation, but the two groupings cannot exist together. This is the problem with the classical pressure picture linked to a steady state scenario and not a single photon process which displays a discontinuity in time i.e. a single photon may either reflect or refract. In this note we try to consider why classical energy conservation/ pressure balance only leads to one equation, while the quantum mechanical approach leads to the two required equations at the price of introducing a square root flux type of probability. We argue that there seem to be two factors. First there is the notion of scalars and vectors and a space versus time picture. The single conservation of energy equation AA/c1 = BB/c1 + CC/c2 where AA,BB,CCC represent the incident, reflected and refracted beams is expressed in terms of time and so vector information (i.e. -p for the reflected beam is not conveyed). If one rewrites this as AA/c1 -BB/c1 = CC/c2 then one obtains a pressure balance type of equation, but time is removed and one is grouping by space. The second and more important feature we argue is time discontinuity. If one considers a single photon, it may reflect or refract, but not both. Thus there is a time period in which to observe both reflection and refraction and more than one incident photon is needed. Newtonian mechanics in the form of steady state treats time as smooth and so everything must happen instantaneously. This is the idea behind pressure. One considers an impulse 2p multiplied by flux i.e. velocity. The flux is used to find the number of particles which strike a surface per second as if this were a continuous smooth process in time. For the case of reflection/refraction it is not. It is discontinuous because either a reflected ro a refracted photon is created each time. Thus the notion of pressure averages this over and loses some of the information in the problem. This, we argue, is why a pressure balance/ energy conservation equation is not sufficient to solve the reflection/refraction problem even though pressure is a physical concept and may be measured (on average) just as x=vt may be measured on average.
If one considers the reflection/refraction of a steady stream of photons moving in the positive x direction and striking an n1=1 versus n2 interface along the y axis at x=0, one may immediately write a conservation of photon number equation i.e. N(incoming) = N(reflected) + N(refracted) ((1)). This equation, however, does not shed any light on the ratio of N(reflected) to N(refracted) for a given N(incoming). One may also notice that no information about the index of refraction is included. This information manifests itself in: E= p1 c/n1 = p2 c/n2. Taking ((1)) and multiplying by e (photon energy) yields a conservation of energy equation. In both the cases of photon number and energy conservation there is no notion of flux. Taking the energy conservation equation and writing e=p1c1 or e=p2c2 yields an equation relating momenta (proportional to impulses), but this equation involves dynamics i.e. fluxes i.e. c1, c2 values. Thus it is not on the same footing as the photon number or energy conservation equations. We argue that there should exist an impulse balance type equation which does not depend on flux. We suggest this is a key physical idea. (For example, the two-slit interference pattern of p=m1v1=m2v2 are the same.) As a result, the single equation ((1)) is not sufficient for solving the problem. To solve the problem, one needs to recast ((1)) in terms of flux (a notion which exists classically) divided by ci (speed of light) so that one obtains the number of photons. By having 1/c1 appear in the equation, one may multiply by e so that e/ci = pi. One then has the equation: AA/c1 = BB/c1 + CC/c2 ((2)) where AA=incoming flux, BB=reflected flux and CC refracted flux. One must change from a static picture of counting photons to a flux picture, but divide fluxes by ci’s to regain the static picture. Incoming flux is written as AA to indicate it is positive etc. ((2)) still does not solve for B and C in terms of A and n1,n2, but one may bring BB/c1 to the LHS and break ((2)) into two equations using differences of squares. Thus one has an A+B=C equation which is like a nonflux balance of probability or energy (if one multiplies by e) and a static momentum/impulse balance equation pA-pB= p2 C. Solving the problem involves creating not only time independent photon number/energy balance, but also time-independent photon momentum/impulse balance. We argue that the breaking of ((2)) into two equations introduces the notion of quantum mechanics because one uses “square roots” of flux probability. One may ask why one does not simply find a second equation in addition to the photon number/energy balance equation. We argue that the single number balance equation contains all of the necessary information in the problem i.e. flux, photon number, energy or p’s and c’s. Thus a second equation would not be independent. As a result, one must break the single photon balance equation into two independent equations leading to a different kind of physical balance i.e. one involving square roots of fluxes instead of fluxes i.e. quantum mechanics.
In classical statistical mechanics, e.g. a Maxwell-Boltzman (MB) gas, one calculates pressure by multiplying 2p (impulse) by v (velocity or flux). This is done because one has multiple particles and so flux is important. One needs to know how many particles strike a surface per sec as well as their impulse. What happens if one has a single photon (or particle)? This is not a steady stream situation, although one may create a corresponding steady stream situation. In particular, a single photon moving in the positive x direction may reach an interface of two media with different indices of refraction and either reflect or refract. In such a case one has a probability to reflect and one to refract which add to 1. Thus there are two unknowns (i.e. the two probabilities) and energy stays constant. One may immediately write a conservation of energy equation and apply it to a steady state scenario. This necessarily utilizes the idea of velocity because there is a flux. This energy conservation equation may be rearranged to give the appearance of a pressure balance equation which also depends on velocity i.e. flux. The problem is that conservation of energy or pressure balance is a single equation and there are two unknowns. One may not simply say that the probability to reflect is .5 and that to refract .5. In fact, in a previous note (1) we solved this problem using the idea of writing the energy equation in terms of two equations linked to differences of squares. We suggested that these two equations which only involve weights are linked to a function which together with its first derivative is continuous at x=0 .In (2) we suggested that the x-distributions cos(px) and sin(px) represent action-reaction impulse type distributions. We argued that an impulse creates momentum p in the first place and that this “impulse”, in the form of x-distributions, is still present because the object may strike a foil and impart impulse at any time. Furthermore, because cos(px) and sin(px) are probability distributions, there is no sense of time within a wavelength. On average, however, the object moves with a constant velocity. In the case of light it is c/n where n is the index of refraction and in the case of a nonrelativistic particle p/mo. The example of a single photon either reflecting or refracting allows one to formulate the problem in terms of impulse i.e in terms of the probability distribution scheme such that one does not have time and hence velocity. This scheme requires two equations. This impulse based x-probability distribution scheme or quantum mechanical approach, however, should map into the classical pressure balance because on average a photon does move as x=c/n t which it does. It is, however, the quantum approach (impulse picture with no time or velocity within a wavelength) which solves the problem i.e. yields the probability to reflect or refract which may then be linked to classical type (steady stream intensities and flux.
We suggest that quantum mechanics is concerned with preserving two conservations, one related to a kind of probability and the other to a mechanical balance.These two conservations exist at the level of a single particle and are interlinked. Specifically, the derivative d/dx, which measures the effect of a change in a kind of probability, also measures the associated resistance or impulse for a free particle. For a free particle, the “kind of probability” is exp(ipx) and d/dx exp(ipx) = ip exp(ipx) showing that there is an impulse related to p linked with the probability. In other words, a free particle moves through space in a probabilistic manner related to the resistance associated with the impulse p. These two conservations, a kind of probability and a kind of resistance, lead to two independent equations when one considers continuity at points which change momentum. We consider again the problem of a photon moving in the x direction which reflects or refracts at an interface along the y axis between n1-n2 (indices of refraction). Classically, probability is conserved i.e. 1= P(reflect) + P(refract) ((1)). The steady state problem, however, has the appearance of an equilibrium and should have a second conservation, namely one in space, i.e. a balance of pressure. This balance, linear in momentum, however, is the identical equation as ((1)). Thus, there are still two unknowns P(reflect), P(refract) and one equation. In the quantum case, double conservation may classically be manifested by the same equation. This seems to suggest, we argue, that ((1)) is a consequence of an equation based on p (which is linked to momentum). We try to find this association in two ways. First, we argue that the interface may exist at xo and that there are various momenta in the problem, We argue these represent pertinent information which does not appear in ((1)). We suggest that ((1)) seems to be a kind of magnitude equation with p and xo information being part of the direction of vectors i.e. p and xo may exist in a phase exp(i f(p,x)). Together with the conservation of pressure condition, we argue that exp(i f(p,x)) = exp(ipx). This argument, however, implicity involves consider the phase function exp(if(p,x)) as a kind of probability. Alternatively, we consider finding this probability follows from maximizing Shannon’s entropy subject to the periodic constraint i p x P(x), but we investigate why Shannon’s entropy form should be used, i.e. what is its physical significance?
In this note we argue there exist two force delivery schemes which are already well-known in classical mechanics namely: F(x)dx and F(t)dt. The former is associated with work and kinetic energy, is deterministic (yields x(t)) and requires information about velocity (or rest mass). It deals with F(x) where F=Force. The second is associated with an impulse which changes momentum. In this case, one does not need to know the rest mass or velocity. For example, a particle with momentum p (this allows for many mo,v pairs with the same p) strikes a surface and is reflected back with -p. It is also associated with probability as such a scenario exists for light reflecting and refracting from a surface. One does not know a priori the probabilities for these two phenomena so the problem is probabilistic. Classical mechanics primarily deals with the F(x) force delivery scheme, e.g. solving a differential equation(s) which arise directly from dp/dt = F(x) or using Lagrange’s or Hamilton’s formalism. Ultimately one obtains the deterministic result x(t). Although the notion of an impulse is well-known in Newtonian mechanics, it does not seem to be used much in calculations because an explicit form of F(t) is usually not known i.e. the force acts in a very tiny dx region in a very short period of time. As noted above, both schemes i.e. both deterministic and probabilistic situations appear in the macroscopic classical world, yet for some reason it is suggested that Newtonian mechanics is only deterministic. Newton considered a photon to be a particle with momentum p. A single photon reaching a surface with a different index of refraction has a certain probability to reflect and another to refract. This is a probabilistic, not deterministic, scenario governed by an impulse delivery. The probabilistic problem of light reflecting and refracting in a macroscopic situation may be solved by using continuity of the periodic electric field and its derivative from Maxwell’s solution for a photon from his electromagnetic equations. We have suggested in previous notes, however, that no knowledge of Maxwell’s result is needed. A steady state reflection/refraction problem removes time (unlike the x(t) deterministic picture), but seems to require some kind of balance on the right and left hand sides of the medium. Furthermore two equations are needed to solve for the two unknowns (i.e. reflection and refraction probabilities). Intensity/flux does not balance because the incident and reflected rays have positive flux. For n1<n2, it would be good to have a balance function which allows partial cancellation of the incident and reflected fluxes. The solution exp(ipx) allows exactly this and this solution only requires knowledge of p, momentum, not of rest mass (i.e. velocity). Thus there seem to be two force delivery mechanisms in the macroscopic classical world with very different solutions. The first is the F(x) delivery yielding the deterministic x(t) and requiring knowledge of mo (rest mass). The second is the impulse delivery which is probabilistic, makes use of exp(ipx), and does not require rest mass. If rest mass is known, however, exp(ipx) is linked with the average equation x = p/m t. At first the two delivery schemes seem mutually exclusive, but in the impulse situation, we try to show that a series of impulses may create the semblance of an F(x). Thus one has the exp(ipx) from the probabilistic force delivery scheme, but at the same time an F(x) emerges and so an x(t) type solution should also follow. How can this be? exp(ipx) is probabilistic and one may create averages with probabilities. Such an average or root mean square average may exhibit deterministic behavioiur. Thus exp(ipx) may be used together with a potential V(x) to create a solution W(x)= Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) such that the prms(x) behaves like a Force(x) delivery result, yet at the same time one has the features of the impulse delivery as exp(ipx)s are used. Thus the exp(ipx) impulse approach may be used in strict impulse delivery problems and in F(x) delivery problems. This is exactly what occurs in quantum mechanics.