In Part 1, we argued that P(x)dx=dx/L (where L is an arbitrary length) applies to a particle at rest. If one views such a particle from a frame moving at constant -v, it is moving. We argued that in such a case, the relevant probability is not simply linked to the position x, but also to the momentum p at x because this delivers an impulse hit. In particular, probability is presumably to be used in a physical problem with interactions and probability and a dynamical particle requires a dynamical probability describing both x,t and E,p. This led to exp(-iEt+px) which actually predicts intervals in space hbar/p and time hbar/E. In other words, a probabilistic view point leads to these results. Here, we ask the question: What if one simply wishes to use deterministic physics to describe a moving particle? After all, Newtonian mechanics is deterministic and one does not really need to focus on P(x)=1/L or its modification for a moving particle. In such a case, a particle moving with constant v (starting at x=0, t=0) is described by x/t=v both in Newtonian mechanics and special relativity. There is no uncertainty in x and t here which begs the question: Why does it appear in the probabilistic formalism of Part 1? In particular, exp(-iEt+ipx) derived in Part 1 implies physical regions: dx = hbar/p and dt=hbar/E and these seem to be absent in x/t=v and this is a problem. We suggest that a probabilistic approach is buried in the Lagrangian formalism which leads to the result d/dt v = 0, i.e describes the particle’s motion in space. This motion is actually x/t=v, but this equation only presents a subset of the description of a particle that is moving with constant speed, even in a deterministic Lagrangian/Action approach. We have already pointed this out in (1). We briefly explain it again here, but the real question is why does one need to consider the Lagrangian in order to describe x/t=v? In other words, the probabilistic approach associated with v=x/t only emerges in the Lagrangian formalism using a relativistic action Lt = -Et+px, with x/t=v. Ignoring the action and Lagrangian leads to an absence of hbar/p and hbar/E and one is only concerned with x/t=v. We note that the Lagrangian is primarily linked to the result: p = dL/dv partial and so argue that one is not simply interested in motion (x/t=v), but also in interaction because p is associated with an impulse hit. Thus, the Lagrangian approach is more than simply a mechanism which describes x,t motion, it is associated with p and E (through Hamiltonian = E = pv-L.) Using the Lagrangian approach suggests that it does not suffice to consider x and t by themselves when p and E are present. One must consider all four variables x,t,E,p which is the same point made in Part 1. The physics of the problem dictates that it is not enough to simply think in terms of x,t,v. The Lagrangian approach, which is constructed to ultimately yield x/t=v, when written in terms of E, p, i.e. Lt = -Et+px demonstrates uncertainty in x, hbar/p and t, hbar/E as shown in (1). This uncertainty must then be written in terms of a probability which is Lorentz invariant and leads to exp(-iEt+ipx). The point is that one would not even consider a probability if one did not consider E,p and x,t together as a complete treatment of a moving particle. In other words, x/t=v is an incomplete description of the state of a particle moving with constant speed, even in a deterministic framework.. At first this might seem surprising, but it is well known that energy and p are linked to interactions. In special relativity, one does not consider x,t,v alone and then compute p and E from these, but considers four vectors and Lorentz invariant equations. It is possible to create a Lorentz invariant equation involving all four state variables x,t,E,p and it turns out that this is the relativistic Lagrangian which describes motion, so this approach is more general than simply stating x/t=v. Thus, delta x = hbar/p and delta t= hbar/E appear in both the probabilistic approach of Part 1 and the deterministic one of the Lagrangian used here.
In Part 1, we argued that P(x)dx=dx/L (where L is an arbitrary length) applies to a particle at rest. If one views such a particle from a frame moving at constant -v, it is moving. We argued that in such a case, the relevant probability is not simply linked to the position x, but also to the momentum p at x because this delivers an impulse hit. In particular, probability is presumably to be used in a physical problem with interactions and probability and a dynamical particle requires a dynamical probability describing both x,t and E,p. This led to exp(-iEt+px) which actually predicts intervals in space hbar/p and time hbar/E. In other words, a probabilistic view point leads to these results. Here, we ask the question: What if one simply wishes to use deterministic physics to describe a moving particle? After all, Newtonian mechanics is deterministic and one does not really need to focus on P(x)=1/L or its modification for a moving particle. In such a case, a particle moving with constant v (starting at x=0, t=0) is described by x/t=v both in Newtonian mechanics and special relativity. There is no uncertainty in x and t here which begs the question: Why does it appear in the probabilistic formalism of Part 1? In particular, exp(-iEt+ipx) derived in Part 1 implies physical regions: dx = hbar/p and dt=hbar/E and these seem to be absent in x/t=v and this is a problem. We suggest that a probabilistic approach is buried in the Lagrangian formalism which leads to the result d/dt v = 0, i.e describes the particle’s motion in space. This motion is actually x/t=v, but this equation only presents a subset of the description of a particle that is moving with constant speed, even in a deterministic Lagrangian/Action approach. We have already pointed this out in (1). We briefly explain it again here, but the real question is why does one need to consider the Lagrangian in order to describe x/t=v? In other words, the probabilistic approach associated with v=x/t only emerges in the Lagrangian formalism using a relativistic action Lt = -Et+px, with x/t=v. Ignoring the action and Lagrangian leads to an absence of hbar/p and hbar/E and one is only concerned with x/t=v. We note that the Lagrangian is primarily linked to the result: p = dL/dv partial and so argue that one is not simply interested in motion (x/t=v), but also in interaction because p is associated with an impulse hit. Thus, the Lagrangian approach is more than simply a mechanism which describes x,t motion, it is associated with p and E (through Hamiltonian = E = pv-L.) Using the Lagrangian approach suggests that it does not suffice to consider x and t by themselves when p and E are present. One must consider all four variables x,t,E,p which is the same point made in Part 1. The physics of the problem dictates that it is not enough to simply think in terms of x,t,v. The Lagrangian approach, which is constructed to ultimately yield x/t=v, when written in terms of E, p, i.e. Lt = -Et+px demonstrates uncertainty in x, hbar/p and t, hbar/E as shown in (1). This uncertainty must then be written in terms of a probability which is Lorentz invariant and leads to exp(-iEt+ipx). The point is that one would not even consider a probability if one did not consider E,p and x,t together as a complete treatment of a moving particle. In other words, x/t=v is an incomplete description of the state of a particle moving with constant speed, even in a deterministic framework.. At first this might seem surprising, but it is well known that energy and p are linked to interactions. In special relativity, one does not consider x,t,v alone and then compute p and E from these, but considers four vectors and Lorentz invariant equations. It is possible to create a Lorentz invariant equation involving all four state variables x,t,E,p and it turns out that this is the relativistic Lagrangian which describes motion, so this approach is more general than simply stating x/t=v. Thus, delta x = hbar/p and delta t= hbar/E appear in both the probabilistic approach of Part 1 and the deterministic one of the Lagrangian used here.
In Part 1, we considered Newtonian elastic scattering and proposed a probability exp(-iEt+ip dot r) to allow for equal product probability weights for any (ei, ej) (energy) and (pi, pj) (momentum vector) outcome pair. We insisted on the probability being a Lorentz scalar and argued that all free particles have the same real value weight, hence the modulus of 1. This notion is based on probability as it is applied to possible outcomes. This means that one does not have a fully deterministic situation because otherwise one would know the exact ei,ej, pi,pj outcome and would not require probabilities in the first place. In Part 2, we argued that a deterministic approach based on x=vt for a free particle contains no notion of probability and so this seems to contradict exp(-iEt+ipx) with its physical intervals: delta t = hbar/E and delta x = hbar/p. We then noted that these intervals and hence probability are found in the Action= Lagrangian * t = -Et+px with v=x/t. We concluded that x=vt, a solution of d/dt dL/dv partial - dL/dv = 0 loses some of the information present and that examining the action reveals more information because one is forced to deal with x,t, E and p at the same time. Here, we return to Newtonian elastic two-body scattering and assume that one has the following deterministic case: e1,e2, p1, p2 → e3,e4, p3,p4. One would then assume that no probability of any kind is present. We suggest that momentum is conserved due to action-reaction, something that Newton already proposed without any notion of probability required. Energy is conserved because it cannot be ultimately created or destroyed and we consider special elastic collisions. We then consider the Newtonian idea of a particle being acted upon by a force -dV(x)/dx, where V(x) is a potential. The interaction occurs for a dt, dx, but Newtonian physics assumes that dx→0, dt→0. Thus, Newtonian mechanics allows for a minimum dx->0 for conservation of momentum. By going into the center-of-mass frame of two particles which collide elastically, one has p and -p in this frame. When the two particles come together at x,t, for a tiny time one has a joint particle with no net momentum which is interacting and breaking apart. Then, in the 1D case, one particle moves out with p1 and the other with -p1 in the cm-frame. If one considers A= -Et+px for one particle, then Newton’s dt->0, dx->0 as well as x=0, t=0 yield A=0. It is known from special relativity, however, that there is a jump in x for a particle viewed from a moving frame. In particular, if the particle is at x=0 at t in the rest frame (cm frame), then in the moving frame: x’ = g(v) v t where g(v)=1/sqrt(1-vv/cc).This is linked to the person in the moving frame (-v) measuring the particle which seems to move to him/her. This measurement takes some minimum amount of time. Thus, it seems that one must reject dx→0 on the grounds of special relativity. The question then becomes: What is the smallest dx and dt one may have based on special relativity? We suggest that given the A=0 case, one may have delta x =hbar/p and delta t = hbar/E. Even in a deterministic elastic interaction, the notion that dt and dx cannot be 0 leads to minimal values for these which are probabilistic, i.e. they are based on special relativity and not on the actual interaction. If one has initial uncertainty in x and t, even if the particle then moves with x=vt, this uncertainty should also be propagated along as well, because the dx, dt uncertainty cannot simply vanish. We suggest that the notion of exp(-iEt+ipx) emerges even if one removes the initial probabilistic assumption of elastic scattering with unknown outcomes. Known outcomes still lead to uncertain dx=hbar/p and dt =hbar/E in keeping with the uncertainty contained in Lt= -Et+px, which is used for deterministic calculations. Thus, it is special relativity which places a constraint on how small dx and dt may be in a physical reaction and one cannot simply use the Newtonian dx→0, dt→0.
In Part 1, we argued that Newtonian mechanics essentially contains the notion of probability found in the free particle wavefunction exp(-iEt+ipx). The difference is that the wavefunction/probability quantifies dx=hbar/p and dt=hbar/E. The standard Newtonian approach is to have dx->0 dt->0 in order not to deal with the lengths of these intervals. This limiting feature may work in the classical world (but not for photons reflecting and refracting through windows), as the actual sizes of dx and dt may in general be very small in the classical world, but they are not small in the case of atomic or nuclear lengths. The question is: In Newtonian mechanics, without any reference to exp(-iEt+ipx), how would one obtain finite values for dx and dt? Furthermore, why should one wish to obtain dx,dt values associated with x,t in x=vt. We suggest that because one deals with a moving object, and not a stationary one, any x,t on a x=vt trajectory should be associated with a dx,dt to verify its existence. Unlike the stationary case, for which one may strike the particle and make it move, dx,dt for the moving particle should be dynamical and associated with Lorentz invariance. We suggest that it is meaningless to speak of x,t for a moving particle without a corresponding dx,dt. If one can obtain dx,dt values, then one can argue, as we did in Part 1, that Newtonian mechanics contains the notion of an uncertainty dx about x and dt about t for a free particle. This is essentially the uncertainty which allows the 2-slit interference to occur and solves the probabilistic reflection-refraction problem at an n1-n2 index of refraction interface. Of course, if probability must exist within dx and dt, one requires a math expression for such a probability (i.e. exp(-iEt+ipx). One cannot simply use Newtonian mechanics because it does not make use of such a probability, but at least it predicts that such a probability should exist, we argue. Here we show that one may directly use special relativity to show that dx=hbar/p and dt=hbar/E in Newtonian mechanics, such that one has a dx and dt associated with the same value of the classical action as x,t for which x=vt. The classical action describes, for various x,t values describes the x(t)) trajectory in spacetime and so having built-in dx,dt values in this same action ( which is the Lorentz invariant -Et+px both nonrelativistically and relativistically) shows that Newtonian mechanics must be associated with finite dx,dt. The reason that we consider a dx and dt in the first place is that v=dx/dt. The Newtonian approach is to take the limit dx->0 and dt->0. This, we argue, is associated with a coarse-grained equation x=vt which holds both relativistically and nonrelativistically. This is associated with a coarse-grained classical action.Each x,t on the trajectory x=vt yields a different action value for the action (x/v*.5mvv or -x/v mo sqrt(1-vv/cc) or -Et+px where x/t=v. One may consider x=vt and x+dx1 and t+dt1 as the next points in the trajectory. According to Newtonian mechanics, one may make these values arbitrarily small. Furthermore, x=vt holds both nonrelativsitically and nonrelativisitically. How then can one propose a finite valued dx and dt? We argue that the manner in which this may be achieved is to have a dx,dt associated with x,t which does not change the action value for x,t, i.e. does not change -Et+px. This set dx,dt is finite valued even though the next x,t considered may have a dx1, dt1 value such that dx1<<dx and dt1<<dt. If, however, dx and dt are to be taken seriously, the dx1 and dt1 less than dx,dt are simply math values, not physical ones. In other words, one needs a dx,dt to justify the existence of x,t and if x=vt allows any x+dx1 (dx1<<hbar/p), then this is a coarse-grained equation. The coarse-grained action, however, allows for the defining dx=hbar/p and dt=hbar/E even if the action itself is coarse-grained.
In Part 3, we started with the notion of a free particle probability linked to energy and momentum conservation in two body Newtonian elastic scattering. In particular, we argued that one needed a probability which shows an equal weight for any outcome (ei,ej) and (pi,pj) (momentum vector) set which conserves energy and momentum. This led to a first guess of exp(iC1 E) and exp(iC2 p), but in Part 3, we argued the momentum and energy are defined through a Lorentz transformation of mo at rest and such a transformation must also affect x,t → x’,t’. We concluded one cannot create any probability based on p and E without also considering x and t which transform according to the same transformation. This then allows one to create a Lorentz invariant probability. Here we take an opposite approach, i.e. one which does not involve p and E a priori. It is well known from classical physics that P(x)dx=dx/L, where L is an arbitrary length, describes a uniform distribution for particles at rest. One may, however, view these particles from two frames, one moving with constant v and the other with constant -v. This would seemingly introduce probabilities P(x1’,t1’,v) and P(x2’,t2’,-v) with no notion of energy or momentum present. It would seem that the product of the two for an x1’=x2’ and t1’=t2’ should equal the rest frame result. This suggests an exp(f(x,t,v)) solution, but there is no reason to have an ever increasing or decreasing exponential and so exp(i f(x,t,v)) seems like a solution. There is, however, a problem, because given P(x,t,v=0), and such a solution is then not P(x)= 1/L unless P(x,t,v)=1, which we reject as it assumes a moving particle is identical to one at rest in terms of probability.. In other words, there are two probabilities for the rest frame, P(x)=1/L and P(x,t,v=0) = exp(i f(x,t,v=0). Given that exp(i f(x,t,v) is based on Lorentz frames, one would also expect probability to be conserved and not be created or destroyed simply because a particle with rest mass is viewed from a rest frame or one moving at constant speed. This seems to force one to use relativistic variables linked to a Lorentz invariant, namely E,p as well as x,t. As a result, in Part 3 we argued that one cannot consider a probability of p,E without considering x,t as well and here we suggest that one cannot even consider a probability of x which is conserved in different constant moving frames without introducing t,p and E. Thus, P(x,t,v=0) which seemed like a “P(x)” type of probability in the rest frame is really a different probability, namely one in time exp(i f(x, v=0, t)), i.e. . for this to be Lorentz invariant, one has exp(-iEt+ipx) = exp(-iEt) for any x. In a sense, this is like P(x)=1/L in that each x carries the same weight, but there is still the time variable and the probability actually changes in time unlike P(x)=1/L. This seems to lead to a paradox because the given exp(-imocct) one may formally argue that exp(-px)=1 for p=0 which is the x part of the probability, yet above we argued that in order to obtain this value one should use P(x1’,t1’v)P(x2’,t2’,-v) at x1’=x2’ and t1’=t2’. The difference between P(x)=1/L is that the time measurement has infinite resolution, while exp(-imocc t) implies that it does not because otherwise information about x is the same. Thus, special relativistic considerations lead to the notion of uncertainty in time (hbar/E) and space hbar/p, but in the Newtonian scenario, these do not exist. We argue that the question then becomes: Why would one wish to change from a special relativistically related probability exp(-iEt+ipx) which shows physical uncertainty units of time and space, to one which shows infinite resolution for x and t, through exp(-iEt+ipx)exp(iEt+ipx)? We suggest that exp(-iEt+ipx) or exp(ipx) in time-independent problems is a dynamic probability needed to describe interactions. One may see that cos(px) and sin(px) may have positive and negative values, implying the removal of probability from one place and its addition somewhere else. One the interaction result has been obtained, one wishes to measure spatial results, i.e.count particles in bins in space. There is no need for the interaction information and it may be formally removed using exp(iEt-ipx) exp(-iEt+ipx).
We have argued in previous notes that free particle quantum mechanics arises from special relativity and is dependent on both the deterministic x=vt and fluctuation/probabilistic delta x= hbar/p and delta t = hbar/E. In other words, both determinism and probability are inherent to special relativity and it is also special relativity which defines energy and momentum. At first, it may seem that these are rather strong suggestions. We argue, however, that perhaps these ideas are already present in classical Lagrangian/Stationary Action theory. This theory was developed to describe Newtonian mechanics, but we argue that because it uses the notions of E (energy) and p (momentum), it must be linked to special relativity which yields the full expressions for these functions. The interesting feature of stationary Lagrangian theory is that a notion of fluctuations in path (x,v,t) are used to ultimately obtain the deterministic path x=vt for a free particle as the stationary one. The notion of a stationary, deterministic path x=vt is present, but so is the notion of fluctuations about this path. The problem is that the stationary action process is a mathematically one and does not attribute and physical features to the fluctuations about the stationary path, whereas we argue that these fluctuations are linked with probabilistic impulse hits or E interactions in time and are directly associated with the quantum wavefunction (complex probability) exp(-iEt+ipx) which physically manifests itself (as in 2-slit experiments etc). In order to connect stationary classical action theory to special relativity, we use H = pv - L -> -Hdt + pdx = L dt. If one considers fluctuations of this equation, the RHS set to 0 leads to the stationary deterministic x=vt, while the LHS leads to delta t = hbar/E and delta x = hbar/p. In other words, there is a delta x and delta t not linked to v = delta x / delta t. We suggest that this approach shows both probabilistic and deterministic features present side by side and is directly linked to special relativity because -Hdt + pdx is of the form of the Lorentz invariant -Et+px.
Newtonian mechanics describes forward and backwards motion by x=vt and x= -vt. In order to understand this motion, one needs to create dx and dt units such that a particle with v moves from x,t to x+dx, t+dt. X and t are necessarily coupled and dx and dt are not zero (even in the dx->0, dt->0 limit). They are just very small. For a particle with v=0 (at rest), x and t are decoupled. Given that the particle may be at rest at any x in L, it is natural to define a probability P(x)dx = dx/L, even in Newtonian mechanics. For x=vt and x=-vt, however, x and t must be decoupled, but given different initial points, one can have different sets of x,t measurements. The key point we stress is that motion is linked with dx and dt and these do not have a fixed numerical value in Newtonian mechanics, but nevertheless the concept exists. In principle, Newtonian mechanics is probabilistic because one does not really know what occurs within dx and dt. It is this essential probability, we argue, that is manifested in quantum mechanics by defining actual dx and dt values, although in essence it is already present in Newtonian mechanics. Given that probability P(x) is well-defined and applies to v=0, one may postulate a dynamic probaiblity P1(v) as we have done in previous notes. If one wishes probability to be Lorentz invariant, one may write P1(-Et+px). At first, based on Newton’s x=vt and x=-vt, one would expect that x and t must be coupled through x=vt. The problem with this is that one may form an AND (product) scenario in probability theory. Furthermore, P1(-Et+px) does not contain initial point information.If one writes P1(v)*P1(-v), one should obtain P(x)=1/L because there is no motion. P(x) decouples x,t and so P1 must do the same. In other words, P1(-Et+px) contains decoupled x,t. This differs from Newton’s coupled x(t). If P1 does not increase or decrease indefinitely in x,t, then a solution is P1(-Et+px) = exp(-iEt+ipx). The question we ask is: How does exp(-iEt+ipx) contain more information than x=vt, x=-vt from the Newtonian scenario? In the Newtonian picture, in order to have a v and -v particle at the same x,t, they must be at different x,t values before and after. This suggests a disconnect in dx (and dt) for x and t. This disconnect is present in exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx), at least in the sin(px) term. The only new information contained in exp(-ipx-iEt) is that dx=hbar/p and dt=hbar/E. The uncertainty in x and t (due to dx and dt) is already present in Newtonian mechanics, but one ignores it by considering dx->0 and dt->0. The notion that dx and dt may be finite does not arise experimentally in classical calculations, but becomes apparent on atomic and nuclear scales. As a result, we argue that the probabilistic nature of a moving particle exp(-iEt+ipx) is already present in Newtonian mechanics, but one does not know how to fix dx and dt. As a result, it is not really the case that Newtonian mechanics is so greatly different from quantum free particle mechanics. The dx and dt lengths may be associated with uncertainty even in Newtonian mechanics and if this is considered, then Newtonian mechanics would not be dissociated with 2-slit interference and 1-D reflection-refraction at an n1-n2 index of refraction interface.
There seems to be much interest in the literature (1) in associating quantum mechanics (in particular the Schrodinger equation) with a classical joint phase space probability F(x,p,t) such as appears in classical Liouville theory etc. Here, we consider that P(x)dx = dx/L for a particle at rest and analyze the extra physics which appears when one considers a single particle bouncing back and forth in a box, which is what a person in a frame moving with -v would see (albeit with a Lorentz contracted L.) We suggest that the constraint L is important as it is linked with physical forces which appear when the particle moves. In other words, a particle at rest is linked with a static probability, while for motion, one must have a probability which is linked to more than x and t, but to force considerations in x and t, a dynamical probability. (Experiment bears this out as we discuss.) In particular, we argue that in the case of a moving particle, two physical concepts related to force appear, namely pressure which is an average over time and impulse hit which is only linked with space. Thus, two different particles may have the same p, but different v and pressure values. We thus suggest a physical grouping of (p,x) and (pressure, t). We then note that one needs to somehow preserve the notion of P(x)=1/L, i.e motion does not introduce a bias to x, nor to time. In a rest frame, there is no motion and so there is neither p nor pressure, but P(x)=1/L pertains. If one tries to define a probability with two groupings, one for pressure, t and the other for p,x, then if one multiples a p1 case by a p2 case, the p,x grouping should yield p1+p2, x. Furthermore, a p,x grouping should imply mixed terms, e.g. px etc, otherwise one does not really have an association between the two variables. This suggests a pf(x) form linked to the p-x grouping. Given the notion of special relativity, it seems that one may replace pressure with the notion of energy and create a Lorentz invariant probability. This would then lead to the free particle quantum wavefunction (probability) exp(-iEt+ipx), but we argue that the roots are in classical physics and a desire to physically describe the physical information present for a particle bouncing back and forth in a box.