Abstract The kinetic energy, T, of a particle is the energy it possesses on account of its motion. In classical mechanics, the kinetic energy is related to the linear momentum p by T= p2 /2m (and by T=½mv2, where v is the velocity). In quantum mechanics the kinetic energy is proportional to the second derivative of the wavefunction (Box K.1). As the wavefunction becomes more sharply curved, so the kinetic energy of the particle increases. Conversely, a particle with a wavefunction that is almost flat everywhere has almost zero kinetic energy.
Abstract The kinetic energy, T, of a particle is the energy it possesses on account of its motion. In classical mechanics, the kinetic energy is related to the linear momentum p by T= p2 /2m (and by T=½mv2, where v is the velocity). In quantum mechanics the kinetic energy is proportional to the second derivative of the wavefunction (Box K.1). As the wavefunction becomes more sharply curved, so the kinetic energy of the particle increases. Conversely, a particle with a wavefunction that is almost flat everywhere has almost zero kinetic energy.
In classical statistical mechanics, C exp[ -( mv*v/2 + V(x))/T) represents density i.e. the probability for a particle to have a velocity v and be at x. If applies this probability to Shannon’s entropy formula, one obtains C/T ( mv*v/2 + V(x)) exp[ -( mv*v/2 + V(x))/T) + exp[ -( mv*v/2 + V(x))/T) ln(C). Thus, it seems energy times density + density times ln(C) is the entropy density, a well known result in classical statistical mechanics, although sometimes not explicitly stated. The first term integrated over x is essentially the kinetic energy, while the second integrated over velocity yields the potential energy term. Thus, the first term partial density seems to be a purely momentum dependent kinetic energy piece times probability and the second a purely x dependent potential energy piece. (There is still an integral over velocity for the first term and one over x for the second to obtain the full entropy.) In quantum mechanics, we argue that a(p1)exp(ip1 x) a(p2) exp(ip2 x) serves as the probability where W(x)=Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx) = wavefunction. This leads to an expression for entropy density with two terms, one of which may be immediately integrated over momentum and the other over space. If one wishes to make a link to the classical statistical mechanical case, one may ask what requirement is necessary for the momentum related piece to represent average kinetic energy and the spatial part, average potential energy. The requirement, we find, yields the wavefunction of the ground state harmonic oscillator. For other cases, the partial density is not equivalent to average energy. Thus, we try to establish a link between entropy density and energy density, but require the kinetic energy related term to be strictly a function of momentum and the potential related term strictly one of x. In quantum mechanics, one may form averages at a point x. For example, KEave(x)= [Sum over p p*p/2m a(p) exp(ipx)]/W(x). If one examines a p/-p pair with a(p)=a(-p) (for example), cos(px) terms arise which are positive at some x and negative at others. We argued in previous notes that this represents stochastic flow in the opposite direction from that expected by -dV/dx. In other words, -dV/dx is an average which consists of stochastic force addends which may give momentum hits to the right or left, but which add to yield -dV/dx. As a result, one may have negative contributions to the kinetic energy (and density as well). In this note, we argue one may also have negative contributions to the entropy density due to this phenomenon.
The Schrodinger equation has been considered to be a postulate of quantum physics, but it is also perceived and derived heuristically as the quantum equivalent of the classical energy relation. We indicate that the Schrodinger equation cannot be a physical postulate, and we show that the heuristic derivations wrongly consider that the particle kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the momentum operator acting on the wavefunction. The correct term is proportional to the square of the momentum. Analyzing particle interactions, we realize that particles have multiple virtual motions and that each motion is accompanied by a wave that has constant amplitude. Accordingly, we define the wavefunction as the superposition of the virtual waves of the particle. As a result, quantum mechanics becomes a local and global theory, while in the traditional formulation it is a local theory. In several interaction settings we can tell what particle motions arise and explain the outcomes in simple and tangible terms. Most importantly, the mathematical foundation of quantum mechanics becomes clear and justified, and we derive the Schrodinger, Dirac, etc. equations as the conditions the wavefunction must satisfy at each space-time point in order to fulfill the respective total energy equation.
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 bound state quantum mechanics, one has statistical observables (based on P(x) where P is probability) such as spatial density d(x), potential energy density V(x)d(x) and kinetic energy density .5mv(x)v(x) d(x), where v(x) is the classical velocity obtained from .5mv(x)v(x) + V(x) = E. (Kinetic energy density can also be written as -1/2m W(x) d/dx d/dx W(x) where W(x) is the wavefunction). The energy of a state can be obtained by integrating these statistical observables i.e. Integral dx d(x) V(x) + Integral dx d(x) .5mv(x)v(x) = E. If one performs this integration for two different states, one may calculate the energy difference. This begs the question: why does quantum mechanics deal with conditional probabilities such as P(p/x) directly related to W(x)? The issue perhaps begins with the appearance of V(x) and E in the time independent Schrodinger equation. Kinetic energy (not kinetic energy density) should appear and be somehow linked to some motion. A question arises as to why the energy density is proportional to the spatial density i.e. Energy density = E d(x)? This is directly linked to the time-independent Schrodinger equation, but one may try to argue that classical energy conservation .5mv(x)v(x) + V(x) = E at each point x should hold in quantum mechanics with .5mv(x)v(x) equal to Sum over p p*p/2m P(p/x) where P(p/x) = fp exp(ipx)/W(x). If one, however, considers excited states written as Wn(x)= Wo(x)Hn(x) where Wo(x) is the ground state wavefunction, one finds that: -1/2m d/dx d/dx Hn(x) - 1/m [d/dx Wo(x)]/Wo(x) [d/dx Hn(x)] = E1 Hn(x) ((1)) In other words, an eigenvalue equation appears again with no V(x) present. If one assumes Hn(x) has physical meaning (i.e. is related to a phonon or photon), then ((1)) may suggest there is a physical principle in place, i.e. the idea that one must have a “constant” energy at each point x. Here E1 is strictly kinetic energy (although not all of it). This “principle” has consequences as it restricts the values of E1 (i.e. discrete eigenvalues) and leads often to a periodic Hn(x) which has direct effect on kinetic energy density and potential energy density. Thus, having Hn(x) interact with Wo(x) to produce a constant energy E1 times Hn(x) does affect kinetic and energy densities at each x point, just not kinetic energy itself (it is constant i.e. E1). The purpose of this note is to examine this possible principle behind quantum mechanics.
It is well known that the kinetic energy formula of classical mechanics has a limited range of applicability. That formula breaks down when the mass of a moving body increases and the effects of relativity can no longer be ignored. More than a hundred years ago, Sommerfeld and Einstein defined relativistic kinetic energy as the difference between a body’s relativistic energy and its rest mass energy. This paper, however, derives a formula for relativistic kinetic energy that is not a definitional formula. The formula derived in this paper incorporates the phase velocity of a wave. It further finds that the phase velocity of the wave is an important physical quantity linking a body’s kinetic energy and momentum. In current standard physics, the de Broglie wave is not regarded as having physical reality. Nevertheless, this paper concludes that the phase velocity of a matter wave is an essential physical quantity.
In Newtonian mechanics, force and energy are clearly separated. For example, pp/2m = Integral F dx = Integral dp/dt dx = m/2 vv = pp/2m. The equation pp/2m + V(x) = E is considered to be strictly an energy equation. In special relativity, mocc is considered to be strictly an energy. We have suggested in previous notes that mo is proportional to inertia which is a force. Thus, mo and mocc are thought of in two very different manners simultaneouly, i.e. as an energy and as a force. We propose that it might be beneficial to think of both mo and V(x) in terms of energy and force distribution simultaneously. In particular, we consider that V(x) is not only potential energy at x, but is also linked to force or interaction at x through -d/dx V(x). The reason this duality of energy-force may be important is that it is directly linked to quantum mechanics, we argue. In general, it is argued that classical mechanics is a high energy level limit of quantum mechanics, We argue, however, that for a single particle bound state, the energy linked with a momentum p (at any energy level) is pp/2m (nonrelativistic) which is deterministic (and also follows from special relativity) and has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. The difference between classical mechanics and quantum, is that there exists an interaction (impulse hit) probability of exp(ipx) which means that instead of a hit occurring at the center-of-mass point, it may occur within an hbar/p range. Thus, one may have a particle interact and move through either of two slits if they are separated by about hbar/p. If p, however, is changed in an interaction, p1->p2, then the change in energy p2p2/2m - p1p1/2m (one dimension) is classical-deterministic. It is, however, the duality of V(x) with force that force one to consider not only energy pp/2m (deterministic), but also its associated force distribution given by exp(ipx) / W(x), where W(x) = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). As a result, one creates the average kinetic energy term: {Sum over p a(p) pp/2m exp(ipx) } / W(x). One may call exp(ipx)/W(x) a probability and so formally one has KEave(x), but physically exp(ipx) represents a force distribution. The balance to V(x) is a combination of a deterministic energy pp/2m with a force distribution exp(ipx)/W(x). This, we argue, is a physical statement and helps to describe why V(x) may be expanded as a series of virtual particles (e.g. photons etc). It is not just energy, but force that must be considered together. It is only in classical physics, pp/2m + V(x) = E that one solely considers the energy aspects, i.e. pp/2m and V(x) only as energy, but the more general picture, we argue, is to consider not only energy, but force distribution together. This is the quantum picture and it incorporates not only probability, but deterministic Newtonian mechanics (or special relativity) through the use of pp/2m.