In (1), it is stated that “time flows continuously like a river’ … and is treated like a classical variable in Quantum Mechanics.” Here, we wish to consider the behaviour of time in quantum situations. We argue that a 4-space sense of time appears in quantum mechanics through exp(-iEt+ipx), but only intertwined with E (energy) and p (momentum), i.e. interactions involving these variables. Furthermore, there suggest that there must be a clear measure of t as well as an interaction changing E to use exp(-iEt) and a clear measure of x and an interaction changing p to use exp(ipx). In particular, we note that the classical equation x/t = v ensures that time and x are not on the same footing and this same equation holds in special relativity, so -Et+px = constant ((1)) which has the appearance of x and t being on the same footing (as well as (x,ct)) is subject to x/t=v (for xo=0, to=0). Thus, if x/t=v governs x and t information, then x and t are not independent. It seems that one would require fluctuations from these values. The fluctuations ranges could be linked, but actual t and values within the fluctuations would be independent. . We suggest it is possible to find a formalism which treats x and t independently from ((1)), but this formalism must be intertwined with E and p. In particular, one has free particle quantum mechanics in which delta t = hbar/E and delta x = hbar/p. X and t are decoupled in this scenario and so appear as independent because there is no notion of x/t=v when dealing with quantum type interactions. When dealing with such interactions, one uses the probability exp(-iEt+ipx), but this begs the question: How is this factor really used? We suggest that one must consider the following. Given exp(ipx), one uses it if p changes and there is a distinct measure of changing x in the problem. This scenario applies to two-slit interference, bound states with V(x) and one dimensional reflection-refraction at a point x=0. Given exp(-iEt), one uses it if there is a distinct interaction involving E, i.e. it changes and there is a distinct measure in time. Thus, two-slit interference, one dimensional reflection-refraction and elastic scattering from a V(x) are out because they don’t involve changes in E. A bound state with V(x) certainly involves changes in E, but does not have a direct measure of time t (independent of x). A bound state with V(x,t), however, does have a direct measure of t (being independent of x) and also involves energy changing and so exp(-iEt) may be used in this case, as will be shown.
In (1), it is stated that “time flows continuously like a river’ … and is treated like a classical variable in Quantum Mechanics.” Here, we wish to consider the behaviour of time in quantum situations. We argue that a 4-space sense of time appears in quantum mechanics through exp(-iEt+ipx), but only intertwined with E (energy) and p (momentum), i.e. interactions involving these variables. Furthermore, there suggest that there must be a clear measure of t as well as an interaction changing E to use exp(-iEt) and a clear measure of x and an interaction changing p to use exp(ipx). In particular, we note that the classical equation x/t = v ensures that time and x are not on the same footing and this same equation holds in special relativity, so -Et+px = constant ((1)) which has the appearance of x and t being on the same footing (as well as (x,ct)) is subject to x/t=v (for xo=0, to=0). Thus, if x/t=v governs x and t information, then x and t are not independent. It seems that one would require fluctuations from these values. The fluctuations ranges could be linked, but actual t and values within the fluctuations would be independent. . We suggest it is possible to find a formalism which treats x and t independently from ((1)), but this formalism must be intertwined with E and p. In particular, one has free particle quantum mechanics in which delta t = hbar/E and delta x = hbar/p. X and t are decoupled in this scenario and so appear as independent because there is no notion of x/t=v when dealing with quantum type interactions. When dealing with such interactions, one uses the probability exp(-iEt+ipx), but this begs the question: How is this factor really used? We suggest that one must consider the following. Given exp(ipx), one uses it if p changes and there is a distinct measure of changing x in the problem. This scenario applies to two-slit interference, bound states with V(x) and one dimensional reflection-refraction at a point x=0. Given exp(-iEt), one uses it if there is a distinct interaction involving E, i.e. it changes and there is a distinct measure in time. Thus, two-slit interference, one dimensional reflection-refraction and elastic scattering from a V(x) are out because they don’t involve changes in E. A bound state with V(x) certainly involves changes in E, but does not have a direct measure of time t (independent of x). A bound state with V(x,t), however, does have a direct measure of t (being independent of x) and also involves energy changing and so exp(-iEt) may be used in this case, as will be shown.
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.
In previous notes, we argued that quantum and classical features coexist in free particle quantum mechanics because exp(-iEt+ipx) (probability for an interaction at t or x) follows from -Et+px, but x=vt is a deterministic equation that applies to the center-of-mass motion. In other words, interactions involve stochasticity. One might argue that this entire notion follows from the use of -Et+px (Lorenzt invariant). If one did not use this invariant, one might argue that an association between E,p and x,t might not exist. Here we argue to the contrary. While Newtonian mechanics uses KE = pp/2m so that v does not need to appear explicitly if one uses E=KE and p, such is not the case in special relativity. There, one has E and p and might argue that physically these are variables linked with an interaction. At first, v does not appear explicitly if one simply writes E and p, but it does appear if one divides p/E for a particle with rest mass. Now v is directly linked to the deterministic x=vt (for xo=0, to=0) and so we argue that spacetime is inherently present if one links E to p. For a photon, E=pc and c=x/t and so one cannot escape linking E,p with spacetime as well. Given that E and p are measures in E,p space, we suggest that there must be corresponding measures in x,t space (i.e. hbar/p, hbar/E). Moreover, we suggest that there might be two kinds of information present. It is well-known that delta t = hbar/E and delta x = hbar/p (i.e. resolutions), but given that p = E/cc v one might consider two particles with the same p, one with vo, the other with 2vo. Then quantum time resolution information is (T/(hbar/E)), while for a fixed x, 2v only experiences half the time (half a different kind of time information) or deterministic time information is proportional to 1/v. The ratio of the two is constant for p constant. For E=p/v (c=1), one may have two particles with the same E, but vo, 2vo (and hence po, 2po). Quantum spatial resolution information is L/(hbar/p) while for a fixed time 2vo sees twice the space, i.e. twice the information. Again, the ratio of the two types of information is a constant.
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.
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.
Classically, probability is considered in terms of the number of possible outcomes. For example, a die toss has six possible outcomes and a coin toss, two. Probability calculations make use of probabilities and hence of the total number of possible outcomes. Thus, they are not deterministic calculations which follow “what happens” as in Newtonian mechanics. We suggest that if free particle quantum mechanics is probabilistic, it must also involve the notion of possible outcomes in an experiment and not represent a deterministic approach. We suggest, however, that something interesting applies to quantum mechanics because we have suggested that free particle quantum mechanics arises from the Lorentz invariant A = -Et+px. We note that there exist x,t trajectory points which follow x=vt. We also note, however, that one may introduce the idea of intervals dx, dt (because Newton’s dx→0, dt→0 is an idealization) and that A is unchanged for x,t and x+hbar/p , t+hbar/E. In other words, we suggest that there are intervals with probability about each x,t trajectory point. A trajectory point is associated with deterministic physics, but probability about this point is not. In other words, one has a kind of hybrid probability scheme. Thus, exp(ipx) and exp(-iEt) really represent fluctuation probabilities about a trajectory point x and t. These ranges of possible x and t fluctuations about a trajectory point x,t allow for further probability to occur in certain interactions. We consider two examples. The first is 2-slit interference which involves a deterministic particle moving along a straight line towards a 2-slit mechanism perpendicular to its path. At the 2-slit apparatus, one considers a probabilistic calculation as the uncertainty in x, i.e. dx=hbar/p allows for possible interaction with both slits. This involves considering all possible outcomes (i.e. motion through one slit or the other which is a classical situation), but exp(i p dot r1) and exp(i p dot r2) “sit on top” of these trajectories at the 2-slit apparatus and one has interference of the probabilities linked with each classical possible outcome. Thus, there are two sets of probabilities which are intertwined, the probability range hbar/p for each path and the two possible paths which have equal probability. One must consider the possible outcomes for both sets together. We suggest that a similar analysis applies to the case of 1-D reflection-refraction for x=0 at an n1-n2 index of refraction junction. Thus, we suggest that a deterministic free particle with x=vt may encounter probabilistic interaction situations, such as a two-slit apparatus or an n1-n2 index of refraction junction. These are probabilistic only because there is a probability fluctuation scheme in x associated with each deterministic x point. It is this probability which allows for a second probability to arise due to interaction with the slits or at the 1-D n1-n2 junction. In such a case, one must consider all possible outcomes which means that one does not only consider the exp(ipx) type probabilities, but also those linked with the physical interaction, i.e. two possible paths, one from each slit, or an incident, reflected and refracted photon at x=0 (n1-n2 junction). It is a combination of all possible paths which must be used in calculations. We thus suggest that even though there is a sense of determinism, i..e free particles move as x=vt and these exist in the 2-slit case and the 1-D reflection-refraction case, in a probabilistic calculation one must consider all probabilistic outcomes consistent with these. Thus, quantum mechanical calculations are true probabilistic calculations in the sense that they involve all possible outcomes in an analysis.
Quantum mechanics is concerned with measurement and we suggest that in a bound problem impulses due to momentum are the form of measurement which occurs in x space. The Lorentz invariant A= -Et+px, which is also the free particle relativistic or nonrelativistic action with v=x/t, associates energy = pp/2m with time and p with x. Creating eigenvalue equations yields id/dt exp(-iEt) = E exp(-iEt) and -id/dx exp(ipx) = p exp(ipx). P (momentum) is associated with physical impulses and with its own two dimensional probability distribution exp(ipx). E is associated with t and has its own distribution in time exp(-iEt) which implies that the same E holds for each x point without any notion of x probability associated with it. In classical physics, a momentum p exists in a tiny dx (dx→0). For exp(ipx), a p impulse may occur within hbar/p with different probabilities, so one cannot restrict the measurement of p to a tiny dx unless dx is of the order of hbar/p. Nevertheless energy exists at all x points. Given that p measurements occur through specific impulses at different x points with exp(ipx) probabilities, one must calculate an average energy using {Sum over p pp/2m a(p) exp(ipx)} / {Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx)} using the probability associated with the measurement of p in space i.e. exp(ipx). This adds to V(x) to yield a constant E at each x point. We suggest that weighted exp(ipx)s are used to calculate average energy at each x, because it is through impulse measurements that one determines p at different x values and hence the average energy. One may note that one does not calculate {Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) p } / {Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx)}. An impulse hit is associated with a certain probability and this measurement in x yields information about the corresponding energy pp/2m. Each impulse hit also yields information about a time probability exp(-i ppt/2m), but only if the particle is knocked out of the bound system i.e. only if pp/2m is the only energy present, which is not the case for a single particle bound system.