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?
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?
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.
We try to argue that the idea of probability associated with motion may have classical beginnings in that the center-of-mass (cm) of a piece of mass moving with constant velocity v is present within a dx at some time, but moves out of dx. Flux is constant, but at one time the particle cm leaves dx and arrives at the adjacent dx. Constant flux suggests one does not need to consider time. In such a case, one might associate a periodic function showing probability being removed from a region dx (at x) (i.e. a negative distribution) followed by it being added (a positive distribution) to a region x+dx. This suggests a negative-positive cycle, but this labels certain x regions as negative and others as positive which is inconsistent with all x regions having the same weight based on a constant v. Given that time is removed, it seems this cycling may have nothing to do with velocity v or perhaps anything else for that matter. As a result, one may postulate an Aexp(ibx), where b is a constant, for motion. We will argue for a phase linear in x. AAexp(-ibx)exp(ipx) yields a constant AA, which is flux, and treats all x points the same. At this point, one cannot go farther unless one considers other issues.We consider two such issues. First we ask what happens if the particle is viewed from a frame moving at constant v? The velocity of the particle will not be the same, but we have argued that exp(ibx’) may be the form, yielding no information about b when (x,t) changes to (x’,t’). If on the other hand, the phase cannot change if the particle is viewed from the moving frame, one requires a Lorentz invariant. This suggests that the phase may actually be -Et+px. (We also show that it is not necessary to use special relativity to obtain the form exp(ipx). Rather one may consider ideas of pressure balance associated with continuity of exp(ibx).) As a second consideration, we examine a one dimensional reflection-refraction problem at a point xo for which a probability equation 1= Probability(reflect)+Probability(refract) exists. If exp(ipx) for constant E describes motion, this motion changes with changing p, yet one wishes probability to be a continuous function at xo. This suggests different weight coefficients for different exp(ipx) which seem to be associated with P(reflect), and P(refract). If x=0, one has an equation in the weights, with A+B (x<xo) matching C (x>xo) at xo. If one stops at this point, exp(ipx) does not seem to have any impact. One may note, however, that in general xo is not zero and that one wishes at the very least to have the derivatives match. This immediately links the A,B,C values to the p (momentum) discontinuity. Thus using special relativity to create an exp(ipx) has practical implications because it allows one to deal with p discontinuities. We also show though that special relativity, i.e the use of -Et+px, may be bypassed and the form Aexp(ipx) obtained as a result of its first derivative yielding p which is needed in a pressure balance equation. This then suggests A is the square root of flux.
It is known that a single photon moving in the x direction and encountering an n1-n2 index of refraction discontinuity at xo will either reflect or refract, with the probabilities for each summing to 1. This problem, however, is solved using a balance of Aexp(ipx)+Bexp(-ipx) = Cexp(ip2 x) at xo and the derivative d/dx, of this equation. The complex conjugate of one equation multiplied by the second yields: AA/c = BB/c + CC/c2 where E=pc and E is constant for the incident, reflected and refracted photon. The two continuity equations apply even in the case of a single photon, but in such a case one has either an incident photon changing to a reflected one or an incident to a refracted one. One never has all three together as in thte two continuity equations. We ask: How is it possible to include both a refracted and reflected photon together with the incident in the same equation? We suggest here that the form exp(ipx) applies to momentum, whether it is part of a particle or part of a potential field. exp(ipx) may be obtained from maximization of entropy -P(x)ln(P(x)) subject to the periodic constraint ipxP(x). We suggest that in a single photon interaction, one has momentum in media n1 and n2 and these allow for the continuity equation with the system interactions taking the place of a photon to create the balance. There is stochasticity in that a single photon either becomes a reflected or refracted one, but exp(ipx) does not simply apply to the photon. it may be applied to the n1-n2 interface momentum which is created during the interaction. This interaction is consistent with the a steady stream picture only involving photons . Thus for a single photon, it appears as if one has an entangled probability exp(ipx)’s for the incident, reflected and refracted photons, but actually the physical photon only plays a role as first an incident one and then either a reflected or refracted one with the n1-n2 interface momentum creating the missing exp(ipx) piece needed for the continuity balance. Ultimately, A,B and C become probabilities AA/c,= 1, BB/c = P(reflected) and CC/c2= P(refracted), but these are not obtained by maximizing entropy subject to a constraint.as one does not have independence of probabilities.We note that the two continuity equations combine to create a pressure balance which one wishes to have physically in the problem. The photon reflection-refraction problem may be reformulated for a particle with rest mass using a particle with E, p in a constant potential V1 reaching a V1-V2 (both constant) interface at xo with E remaining constant.
We have suggested in previous notes that there is a tendency to consider quantum mechanics as a kind of hybrid probabilistic-deterministic theory because it is supposed to ultimately “merge’ with classical mechanics for high energy levels (tiny wavelengths). Newtonian mechanics is deterministic and so somehow it seems quantum mechanics should also be seen as deterministic, hence the sense of surprise at tunneling when KEave(x)=0, even though vrms(x)=0 does not mean that actual values creating the probability are 0. Here, we wish to argue that exp(-iEt+ipx) (or the exp(ipx) part for spatial interactions) is really a momentum probability scheme which may possibly bypass many aspects of the actual physics to describe a problem in a simpler form in terms of a momentum conserving probability. A key idea is that exp(ipx) is actually the form to use when one has randomness as we will argue for reflection-refraction from an n1-n2 index of refraction junction. We argue that this idea is already known for a particle in an infinite well for which one has sin(pave x), i.e. 1/2i (exp(i pave x) - exp(- i pave x)). In other words, one has the form exp(i pave x), even though it is linked with an average p. Given that one is not considering deterministic physics, there is nothing wrong with exp(i pave x) being composed of Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx), where exp(ipx) holds in all space, not just within the infinite well potential. exp(ipx) is a momentum conserving probability, but on average momentum must also be conserved by a free statistical entity within the well. Similarly, W(x) for a single particle bound state consists of many exp(ipx)s, but represents a fixed E ave and on average this Eave must be conserved in time, hence the time dependent exp(-i Eave t). As a result, one may see that the quantum mechanical exp(-iEt+ipx) is an attempt to describe a system in a simple manner in terms of momentum conserving probability. To see this in more detail, we consider (1) which describes reflection and refraction of a photon at an n1-n2 junction in depth. In a previous note, we have already pointed out that in n2, c/n2 simply means that the photon is interacting on average with atoms/molecules in n2, but has c in between such interactions. It is only on average that one has c/n2 and even E and p2 = p n2. Nevertheless, one may use exp(ip2 x) as a probability which describes average properties of the system, just as it does in the examples in the above paragraph. The question then becomes: Do the microscopic details of the photon physics (the actual interactions) dictate the probabilities to reflect/refract or does the simplified exp(ipx) set linked to momentum conservation do so? Based on (1), it seems that reflection is completely independent physically from “refraction”, the latter requiring re-radiation and affecting all glass molecules. As a result, it appears that it is difficult to suggest that it is the microscopic interactions which dictate probability because reflection and refraction are microscopically so different. On the other hand, reflection-refraction is not a .5-.5 probability random process as experimental results show. The question then becomes: If some kind of systematic probability driver is not supplied by the microscopic interaction, what provides it? We argued in previous notes that one may introduce the probability exp(ipx) into Newtonian scattering to account for an initial p1,p2 (momentum vector set) having equal probability to produce any pi, pj (outcome set) as long as momentum is conserved. We suggest here that it is exp(ipx) that one must use for random interaction if one insists on conserving momentum. Thus, exp(ipx) bypasses microscopic details of interaction and provides an “ any outcome pair of momenta” is equally likely if momentum is conserved. This is a major simplification of the problem, but the question is: What constraints does it impose on physical results? For a free particle, it suggests that it may interact probabilistically with both slits of 2-slit apparatus if the slits are about hbar/p apart. For randomness, one would expect equal probability for each slit and this is the case as long as one also considers exp(ipx) for each slit to a the same point on a screen. In the case of reflection-refraction at an n1-n2 index of refraction junction, we try to see how the simplification exp(ipx) can be consistent with the microscopic details of the interactions and at the same time dictate the probabilities to reflect and refract. We try to consider why an exp(ipx) scheme predicts how nature behaves while a random one with no momentum conservation considerations does not. In particular, we argue that exp(ipx) represent randomness in a two body scattering problem in which momentum is conserved and so this same exp(ipx) must be carried over into problems which involve interactions instead of simply suggesting that one has .5 probability to reflect and .5 to refract because the two processes are independent and hence random. They are random, but with conserved momentum and hence an exp(ipx) scheme is required, we argue.
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 Parts 1 and 2 (and references therein), we tried to make an argument for the existence of a dynamic instantaneous probability which depends on x. This probability exp(ipx) is essentially the quantum free particle picture. The full probability is exp(-iEt+ipx), but in the 1-D reflection-refraction problem considered, E is the same for the reflected, refracted and incident photons. This means that if one establishes OR (addition) equations for probability, exp(-iEt) factors out, leaving only exp(ipx) pieces. In this note, we reiterate that probability already exists in the 1-D reflection-refraction problem as does a conservation of probability equation, i.e. 1= probability(reflect) + probability(refract) ((1)). Why should there be any other probability and other OR equations? We argue that the above equation ((1)) is a time equation which does not focus on space. One does not need to know that the incident and refracted photon move to the right, while the reflected one moves to the left. One does not need to know that the incident and reflected photons are restricted to x<0 for the n1-n2 index of refraction junction at x=0 and the refracted photon to x>0. In other words, one does not need to know anything about space. There are simply two events which are measured in time called reflection and refraction. If ((1)) is a probability conservation equation in time, and spacetime places x and t on equal footing, one may ask: Where is the spatial probability equation? We suggest that one must be careful. Time is positive, but x may be positive or negative. This, we argue, suggests that there should not only be a spatial probability dependent on x, but also two equations which demonstrate the two one-dimensional directions of space. These two directions are associated with motion or momentum and so one could have a spatial probability and its conservation equation, but also a conservation of momentum equation linked with this spatial motion. It is the spatial picture which shows the two directions of p, not ((1)). As a result, we suggest that one should expect the existence of a spatial probability and that it should be associated with two conservation equations, unlike the time probability with its single equation ((1)). This spatial probability viewpoint leads to free particle quantum mechanics, but these quantum equations which solve the 1-D reflection-refraction problem, also yield ((1)) when one combines the two spatial conservation equations, i.e. removes the spatial direction feature in the second equation and focuses only on the two events, reflection and refraction.