In (1), it is suggested that one may obtain the Schrodinger equation by using Hamilton’s equations as a starting point, i.e dp/dt = - dH/dq and dq/dt = dH/dp. (1) defines new variables phi(x,t) = ap+ibq and phi*(x,t) and writes: iC dphi/dt partial = {phi, H} and iC dphi*/dt partial ={ phi*, H}, where {} are the Poisson brackets. (1) then changes phi(x,t) into a stochastic variable which still follows these Hamilton-like relations iC dphi/dt = Integral dx H1(x1,x) phi(x) + b(x,t) where H= Integral dx1dx H1 phi*(x1)phi(x) and b(x,t is a random function. In other words, Hamilton’s theory with an added stochastic b(x,t) is applied to a stochastic variable in order to obtain the Schrodinger equation. The catch, however, is that (1) introduces a number of conditions and assumptions to simplify the problem and actually obtains iC dphi/dt = Integral dx H1(x1,x)phi(x) with b(x,t) gone. We suggest that this implies that one may apply the Hamilton-like form directly to a stochastic variable without b(x,t) present. To strengthen this argument, one may consider a bound state in which b(x,t) may be said to average to 0. Basically, the idea of (1) seems to be that quantum mechanics follows from introducing stochastic physics linked to usual Newtonian trajectory physics, in this case Hamilton’s theory. We argue that this is very similar to the classical action approach we used in (2) to obtain exp(-iEt+ipx) from the classical free particle action applied to stochastic motion and so we compare the two approaches.
In (1), it is suggested that one may obtain the Schrodinger equation by using Hamilton’s equations as a starting point, i.e dp/dt = - dH/dq and dq/dt = dH/dp. (1) defines new variables phi(x,t) = ap+ibq and phi*(x,t) and writes: iC dphi/dt partial = {phi, H} and iC dphi*/dt partial ={ phi*, H}, where {} are the Poisson brackets. (1) then changes phi(x,t) into a stochastic variable which still follows these Hamilton-like relations iC dphi/dt = Integral dx H1(x1,x) phi(x) + b(x,t) where H= Integral dx1dx H1 phi*(x1)phi(x) and b(x,t is a random function. In other words, Hamilton’s theory with an added stochastic b(x,t) is applied to a stochastic variable in order to obtain the Schrodinger equation. The catch, however, is that (1) introduces a number of conditions and assumptions to simplify the problem and actually obtains iC dphi/dt = Integral dx H1(x1,x)phi(x) with b(x,t) gone. We suggest that this implies that one may apply the Hamilton-like form directly to a stochastic variable without b(x,t) present. To strengthen this argument, one may consider a bound state in which b(x,t) may be said to average to 0. Basically, the idea of (1) seems to be that quantum mechanics follows from introducing stochastic physics linked to usual Newtonian trajectory physics, in this case Hamilton’s theory. We argue that this is very similar to the classical action approach we used in (2) to obtain exp(-iEt+ipx) from the classical free particle action applied to stochastic motion and so we compare the two approaches.
In previous notes (1) we argued that the free particle action A (either nonrelativistic or relativistic) may have v (velocity) written as x/t and x and t varied independently to yield: dA/dx partial = p and dA/t partial = -E with A=-Et+px, the Lorentz invariant classical Action = t Lagrangian. We further argued that one may write eigenvalue equations i.e. -idexp(iA)/dx partial = p exp(iA) and idexp(iA)/dt partial = Eexp(iA) and call exp(iA) a type of probability. We noted that if a potential is present one may use P(p/x)= a(p)exp(ipx)/W(x) [W(x)=wavefunction = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx)] and establish a conservation of energy equation KE(x) + V(x) = E such that there exists the same constant E at each x. We described this in two ways. First E represents binding energy so at each x one has the same binding energy i.e. each x point maps to the same E as part of the mass of an overall moving system. Secondly, we argued that E was a parameter indicating that equilibrium existed at each x point, much like temperature T. In this note we wish to consider a different idea suggested in (2), namely that if one has a quantum state: W(x)= Sum over n a(n,t) Wn(x) this may be written as: <i |H| j> a*(i,t)a(j,t) = <W H W>.. If Hamilton’s equations for complex variables are applied to these then: i d/dt partial a*(i,t) = d/da(i,t) partial { <W H W> } ((A)) (2) argues this is the time-dependent Schrodinger equation. In other words, probability weights of the Schrodinger equations (which are complex) obey Hamilton’s classical equation. In this note, we point out that the formalism dA/dx partial = p already introduces operators into classical physics, so it follows that H is an operator which may act on states. We consider the idea of ((A)) as applied to a free quantum particle moving. Next, we apply ((A)) to a quantum bound state and argue that a classical Hamilton’s equation applied to d/dt a(p) partial may describe equilibrium. Finally ((A)) may be applied to a sum of eigenstates, but this is already shown in (2).
In the literature, stochastic approaches employed to derive the Schrodinger equation seem to focus on the idea of a classical spatial density which depends on time and space ie. density(x,t). As a result, d/dt (partial) density appears in various equations such as the continuity and Focker Planck equations. At one point in the derivation the quantum wavefunction is introduced “mathematically” as W(x,t)=sqrt(density(x,t)) exp(i S(x,t)) where S is related to a velocity field through u(x,t)=velocity= d/dx S. From quantum mechanics, -Et becomes a term of S the velocity field. The stochastic/hydrodynamical approaches employ the term du/dt partial = d/dt (partial) d/dx S and then “pull out”” d/dx leaving d/dt (partial) S which yields -E average energy from the -Et term. In this note we argue that for a bound quantum state density(x) so d/dt (partial) density = 0, yet the statistical ideas of quantum mechanics should be present in such a case. Furthermore for the free particle wavefunction exp(ipx-iEt), density=1. In fact, the Schrodinger equation should follow for a free particle even the case of density=1. Stochastic processes seem to be based on equations which consider a change in classical spatial density at a point x in time due to flow in or out or stochastic changes. Quantum processes seem to deal with periodic probability changes from one dimension to another exp(ipx) (2 dimensions) which are somehow related to a physical process of momentum flow. Ultimately one links this process to an energy conservation which does not seem to be the same as a classical stochastic/hydrodynamical approach. In this note we argue that a free particle with a constant momentum p has periodic stochastic processes associated with it through its complex probability change in the region of its wavelength, but that these are linked to creating the momentum p. Furthermore momentum is linked to energy so we argue that the Schrodinger equation is a stochastic equation linking energy and momentum and that time and space are separated i.e. there is no situation of following a change in spatial density in time for a free particle with momentum p. For a bound state, one has a distribution of free particles, but again time is removed from the problem in the sense that it only appears in exp(-iEt) in the wavefunction to again establish a relationship between energy and average momentum and potential. There is again no nonzero d/dt (partial) density term which seems to be key in stochastic equations. Only if one takes a linear combination of energy eigenstates Sum over En an(En) exp(-iEnt) Wn(x) does one obtain the form density(x,t), but we argue that quantum features should already appear in exp(ipx) and the bound state scenario with a zero d/dt (partial) density(x,t). We argue, however, that the Schrodinger equation and fundamental stochastic ideas of quantum mechanics should already be present at the level of exp(ipx).
In a series of notes (1), we argued that the time-independent Schrodinger equation may be considered as a statistical conservation of average energy equation. We further argued that V(x)=Sum over k Vk exp(ikx) delivers stochastic potential hits which create a momentum distribution W(x)= Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx) at each x. The form exp(ipx) describes a free particle and a statistical distribution is made of such free particles. The form exp(ipx) has a modulus of 1 indicating that P(x)=constant. d/dx exp(ipx) = ip suggesting the change in conditional probability with space is related to classical momentum. Given a momentum distribution, each p at x occurs at a different time. Thus, one does not follow a classical particle in time x(t), nevertheless an average energy conservation equation applies. Taking the time-independent Schrodinger equation E W = -1/2m d/dx d/dx W + V(x) W and writing EW = i d/dt exp(-iEt), one obtains a time-dependent equation. We argue that if the time-independent case represents a classical conservation of average energy, the time-dependent equation should be linked to Newton’s equation of motion. This immediately leads to a problem because we argue one does not want x(t) for a statistical system. As a result, x in the time-dependent Schrodinger equation, which represented spatial position before, now represents a spatial variable that is independent of time. We consider the oscillator case and note that an amplitude is such a candidate where x(t)=XA(t). Thus, the time-dependent Schrodinger equation ultimately becomes an equation in A(t) with the amplitude cancelling, at least in the free particle and oscillator case. From such a consideration, one may work “backwards” and find a function for which the time-dependent Schrodinger equation (equating powers of X) becomes Newton’s second law. From this, one may show that exp(i Action) where Action = Integral dt1 (0,t) L where L is the classical Lagrangian is this solution with d/dX applying to X which is an amplitude, not x(t).
In (1), it is argued that the Schrodinger (nonrelativistic) quantum equation may be developed from steady state type classical equations linked to the continuity equation and Newton’s second law. Given the nonrelativistic treatment of (1), F=dp/dt = d/dt (mv) = m dv/dt partial + mv dv/dx. In (1) an equation (III.2) for many particles is obtained from the equation for a single particle: Md (dv/dt partial + v dot grad v) = dF + hbarhbar/4m grad dot (grad grad d - 1/d (grad d) (grad d) ). In (1), it is further assumed that v = grad (phi) for conservative forces, where phi is a function of x,t. One may then see that for d=1 case, for a single particle, that phi= -Et+px and that one may write a Schrodinger equation which is essentially a conservation of energy equation. Here, we consider starting with dp/dt=Force and using a special relativistic treatment. We note that for a conservative force, F = -grad V and suggest trying to write the LHS in terms of a gradient for a free particle so the gradient may be “pulled out” from both sides of dp/dt=F. From a physical point of view, F is a pull or push, but we argue that V (potential) is also physical and that given that p is almost like a force, that there should be meaning to p= grad phi(x,t). This is the basis premise. In the case, F=0, we show that one may obtain -EE + p dot p = constant via this approach which involves writing p = d/dx (-Et+px) (one dimension). We note that associating dp/dt = F with a Lorentz invariant -Et+px shows the close association of Newton’s second law with special relativity because dp/dt=Force is relativistic as long as p=mov/sqrt(1-vv/cc). We suggest that this approach associates operators id/dt partial and -i grad partial (hbar=1) with E and p and allows one to write a free particle equation (Klein-Gordon) in terms of exp(-iEt+ipx), which is a quantum form. We suggest that one way in which to see free particle quantum mechanics emerge (albeit in the simplest case-that of a free relativistic particle) is to try to consider dp/dt in terms of a gradient suggesting that there may be x, t features even for E,p constant. In Newtonian mechanics, a constant E and p immediately implies that derivatives are 0. This need not be the case if one considers p = d/dx (-Et+px). The legitimacy of considering p (which is closely linked to a force) is linked to the legitimacy of considering F = -grad V. In other words, V is a potential which is another way of considering the features of a force and p = d/dx (-Et+px) may mean that -Et+px (and exp(-iEt+ipx) may be another way of considering p,E at a deeper level than simply stating that one has a constant E,p for a free particle. We argue that one does not need to consider a continuity equation as done in (1) and that the full approach follows from analysis of a single free particle (constant E,p) in the special relativistic case, which then yields also the nonrelativistic one.
In the literature (1), the Schrodinger equation: {p1p1/2m + p2p2/2m + V(x1-x2)} W(x1,x2,t) = id/dt partial W(x1,x2,t) may be transformed using P=p1+p2 and (p=m1p2-m2p1)/M and x=x1=x2 where M=m1+m2 ((1)). This leads to a bound Schrodinger equation in x and a “center of mass” equation” in P i..e Hcm =PP/2M which depends on m1 and m2, but not binding energy. . In a previous note, we argued that a free particle’s classical action A (relativistic or nonrelativistic) may be obtained by setting v=x/t and treating x and t as independent (2). This leads to dA/dx partial=p and dA/dt partial = -E. One may write eigenvalue equations: -id/dx partial exp(iA) = pexp(iA) and id/dt partial exp(iA) = E exp(iA). A solution is A=-Et+px with E,t,p and x independent. -Et+px is a Lorentz invariant and this form is used in both relativistic and nonrelativistic quantum mechanics (although E and p have different values). We argue that a free particle rest mass mo may actually involve internal quantum physics, yet the “system” is replaced with a parameter mo and exp(-iEt+px) used to describe it. One may try to apply this approach to a bound system, but exp(-iEt+px) is a statistical probability like object. Thus one needs a statistical theory. We have suggested using an ensemble of exp(-iEt+px) with E=En for all p to indicate a resonance. Then: { Sum over p pp/2m a(p)exp(ipx) } / {Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) } + V(x) = En ((2)) This is the Schrodinger bound equation. We argue that W=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) should be real and this implies that Sum over p a(p) p exp(ipx) = 0 i.e. average momentum for this type of average is 0. As a result, one may create a 4-vector using { 0, mcc + En} and use the Lorentz boost approach to find the momentum and energy in a moving frame. One may then take the nonrelativistic limit to find kinetic energy i.e. the full center of mass kinetic energy. We argue that this is equivalent to considering exp(-iEt+ipx) for the overall bound system which is now translating in space. We argue that ((2)) is a different approach to ((1)) in that binding energy, which may be significant with respect to mcc, should be part of the overall energy of the translating bound system which is called the “center of mass” system in the literature.
The Klein-Gordon equation is often created by taking the deterministic relativistic invariant EE = pp+ momo (c=1), replacing E with E-V(x), E=id/dt partial and p with -id/dx partial and having the derivatives act on a function W(x,t). This seems to suggest that the starting point is deterministic classical mechanics (special relativistic form) E,p equation with stochasticity somehow introduced by having average E and p follow from the action of the operators id/dt partial and -id/dx partial on a stochastic function W(x,t). It also makes it somewhat difficult to understand, from first principles, why one would create a linear equation in E,p (compatible with EE=pp+momo), i.e. the Dirac equation. We suggest that the entire approach to Klein-Gordon equation is stochastic, with the EE=pp+momo equation appearing as an invariant expression of average values which describes motion as seen from different frames moving with constant average velocity v. In such a case, one is not limited to the form EE=pp+momo and there is nothing unusual about trying to create an equation linear in E and p. In particular, we argue that the free particle form exp(-iEt) exp(ipx) follows from two separate maximizations of Shannon’s entropy subject to complex constraints (for periodicity). As a result, free motion with a constant E and p is already stochastic as seen from a photon moving in a region with an index of refraction n or a particle moving in a region with constant potential. Changing to a potential V(x) leads to the notion of an average kinetic energy because a constant p is associated with a distribution in x i.e. exp(ipx). One may think in terms of these average values in order to consider frames moving with constant v. This leads to both -Et+px -EE+pp=momo being invariants. If a V(x) is present, one may replace E with E-V(x), but then needs a statistical average Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) to describe pp.. The time portion may still be exp(-iEt) if one has a bound system characterized by a single average energy. This yields the Klein-Gordon equation.There is, however, no particular reason why one could not use an equation linear in E and p (consistent with -EE+pp=momo), because the latter follows form the an average v (deterministic view) of the stochastic exp(-iEt+ipx) two-dimensional probability.