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 (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 Part 1, we tried to obtain free particle quantum mechanics by writing the LHS side of dp/dt = F as a gradient because the RHS F = - grad V(x) may be written in this manner for a conservative force. Here we argue that just as V(x) has physical meaning, p = grad partial (-Et+px) (found in (1)) should represent the physical potential created by a free particle. That does not change the fact that the particle center-of-mass moves as x=vt, but the interaction created by the particle should be described in terms of a potential and this was found to be -Et+px. From the point of view of a force system (e.g. a 2-slit system) interacting with the potential, one needs a potential created by the free particle. The potential -Et+px shows that an interaction at t,x has the same potential value as one at t+hbar/E and x+hbar/p. Given that this potential follows from dp/dt=Force, we suggest it should be taken seriously and that it indicates there is the possibility of interaction at two different x points x and x+hbar/p in a stochastic manner. In other words, a single free particle could interact with one slit or the other of a 2-slit system if the slit separation is about hbar/p. This still leaves two questions. First, is such a two fold interaction deterministic or probabilistic. We suggest probabilistic because there are ranges for x and t. Second, why does the usual Lagrangian method of finding a stationary solution from d Integral dt L(x, dx/dt, t) = 0 (leading to d/dt dL/dv partial - dL/dx partial = 0) not show this range in delta x? We suggest that writing p = grad partial (-Et+px) (so the potential is Lorentz invariant) removes the dynamics of the particle from the interacting force system (2-slits). The 2-slit is interacting with a free particle potential (not with its dynamic motion. The two need not be the same. We suggest that there are two theories for describing a particle interaction, the single particle potential theory and Lagrangian formalism. We thus suggest that they must be linked and try to show how they compare and how they differ in a systematic manner.
In (1) we argued that one may derive Newton’s second law (which is equivalent to an energy conservation equation) by using information arguments. We argued that V(x), a potential, is a fixed piece of spatial information linked to the x axis being divided into equal dx units. The variable spatial information is dt(x) i.e. the time spent in each dx or v(x) =dx/dt (to put this in the same form as the time displacement generator). One may not simply compare v(x) directly with V(x) because they change differently. v(x) changes in a weighted way i.e. v(x)d/dx or d/dt while V(x) changes as d/dx V(x). Thus we suggest d/dt v(x) = C V(x) which ultimately leads to Newton’s second law. Using d/dt → v(x)d/dx and integrating yields conservation of energy: p(x)p(x)/2m + V(x) = E. A similar argument was used in (2) to deal with the special relativistic case. There one cannot use d/dt → v(x)d/dx to obtain a conservation of energy equation. The point we wish to make is that for both the nonrelativistic and relativistic classical equations there are two types of “information” equations. The first is a “force” i.e. -dV/dx equation which is based on how V(x) changes with x. The LHS of this equation is linked to d/dt p(x). The second is a corresponding energy conservation equation. The quantum case is quite different, we argue, because a free particle is described by exp(-iEt+ipx). There is still the notion of p=mo dx/dt(x) as in the nonrelativistic case because p must be defined, but exp(ipx) is additional imposed piece of spatial information. -id/dx exp(ipx) = p exp(ipx) and -d/dx d/dx exp(ipx) = pp exp(ipx). This begs the question: How does one reconcile the two? For the nonrelativistic Newtonian and relativistic cases it is possible to have two equations (one with Force the other with energy) using one x dependent variable p(x). In the quantum case one may take an average to define a kind of complex = Sum over p a(p) p exp(ipx)/ Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx, but this is complex, not real. Furthermore both +/- is included in so there seems to be a problem linking it with changes in V(x) in one direction. Thus it seems that one is forced to consider the second kind of information equation from classical mechanics and define a <pp> = Sum over p a(p) pp exp(ipx)/ {Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx)}. In the nonrelativsitic case this may be multiplied by 1/2mo and then added to V(x) to obtain a constant E. If one only looks at <pp>/2mo as a spatial function then this is identical to KE(x) i.e. kinetic energy(x) for a classical system. Thus in the nonrelativstic case, Newtonian energy conservation is always embedded in the quantum system regardless of the energy. In other words the quantum bound equation i.e. the time independent Schrodinger is not obtained independently from the classical one in terms of information.One may ask: How does information related to exp(ipx) affect the quantum system? Two immediate ways are as follows. First <pp>/2mo = -1/2mo d/dx dW/dx / W where W= Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). This leads to a differential equation which has discrete En values verified by experiment. Secondly W is linked to spatial density W*(x)W(x) which exhibits crests and near zero regions. Using <pp> suggests that p(x) in the classical case is linked to prms(x) quantum. Thus building quantum mechanics using “informational” ideas seems to involve embedding classical conservation of energy into the quantum equation a priori. This holds both nonrelativstically or relativistically (Klein-Gordon equation). This immediately raises the question: If classical mechanics (in the form of energy conservation) is embedded in quantum mechanics for any energy, why do people seek to take some kind of limit (3) to obtain classical mechanics from quantum? We argue that quantum mechanics has more spatial information than classical, but retains classical conservation of energy so there is no limit to take. One may simply ignore ideas related to the wavelength to obtain classical mechanics, we argue.
In a previous note (1), we argued that one may obtain either the Schrodinger or Klein-Gordon equation from the classical free particle Action = Integral dt L = T L(v) by writing v=X/T and using: p= dAction/dx partial and -E = dAction/dt partial. This may be used together with an energy-momentum relationship E=pp/2m (nonrelativistic) or EE=pp + mm (relativistic) to create an eigenfunction equation by using exp(i Action) as a solution. This is equivalent to exp(-iEt+ipx). In (2), we argued that if one generalizes momentum p to Ev where E(v) is energy and uses nonrelativsitic Lagrangian equations: p=dL/dv and H=E= pv-L, one may find the relativistic Lagrangian for a free particle which in turn yields p= d/dx (TL) partial and -E= d/dt (TL) partial i.e. the form of energy and momentum for a free particle in special relativity. In this brief note, we argue that the Action/Lagrangian formalism for a free particle seems to follow directly from a flow(flux) type equation namely: d/dx Action partial = p = Ev (= mo v nonrelativistic limit). If energy is flowing out of a region given by the usual Gaussian flux equation d/dx function (i.e. grad dot vector) represented by d/dx Action partial, then one is losing energy E(v) in this region. Thus d/dt Action partial = -E. As a result, one should analyze the problem in special relativity i.e. use p=E(v) v (but no explicit form for E(v)) and then take the nonrelativistic limit to get the nonrelativistic approximation. As a result, assuming a flow problem with a function Action(x,t) leads to the Lagrangian formalism. From this one may obtain the forms of special relativity, classical equations of motion and quantum mechanics for a free particle (relativistic or nonrelativistic).
In a previous note (1), we argued that both free particle quantum and classical mechanics follow from an energy flow/flux scheme based on: d/dx (partial) A(x,t) = p ((1a)) and d/dt (partial) A(x,t) = -E ((1b)) A(x,t) turns out to be the classical action tL(v) (L=Lagrangian) with x/t=v and the above hold for both the relativistic and nonrelativistic cases. We further argued that ((1a)) and ((1b)) lead to two sets of solutions, one classical and the other quantum. The classical solution assumes dt→0 and dx→0 i.e. flows may be followed at each point in space (and time). In (2) we argued that ((1a)) and ((1b)) are consistent with p=dL/dv (partial) and H=E= pv - L. From these together with p=Ev one may find: E=mo/sqrt(1-vv) (c=1). For the nonrelativistic case, E= mocc + .5mvv. In this classical analysis one may resolve each t and x, thus if one has a function V(x) (potential) representing energy, the nonrelativistic result is: (E-V(x)) = .5mvv. The quantum solution to ((1a)) and ((1b)) is very different. It establishes eigenvalue equations i.e. id/dt (partial) exp(iA) = E exp(iA) and -id/dx (partial) exp(iA) = p exp(iA) for the free particle. The importance of this is that new physical mechanisms seem to come into play. A= -Et+px so exp(-iEt+ipx) suggests time and spatial regions proportional to 1/E and 1/p in which there is some ambiguity i.e. there are two dimensions and there seems to be some kind of probability for the particle to be in one dimension or the other at x (and similar results for t) i.e. cos(px) and sin(px). As a result, one may not have dx→0 and dt→0. Furthermore, it is argued that a two dimensional associated probability scheme must accompany energy flow. At first this may seem strange, but if one considers a photon which has an energy flow Ev, one has electric and magnetic fields perpendicular to each other and perpendicular to the motion which undergo periodic motion linked to cos(wt) and sin(wt). Thus, the quantum particle periodic probability mimics an already known result from Maxwell’s equations. In fact, we have argued that for fermions there is additional angular motion i.e. spin linked with the recognition of 3-space. Thus we argue that quantum mechanics is involved with periodic type probability motions which are needed to resolve dx and dt (linked to exp(-iEt+ipx) and periodic probability motion (spin) and are also needed for fermions to resolve 3-space as two p vectors may have point in different directions (i.e. spin). Quantum mechanics therefore seems to be a very different theory from classical mechanics, but both appear to be based on energy flow/flux. As a result, the average of a quantum bound state should be linked to a classical system we argue in this note as one only deals with energy flow/flux.
Date on paper should be 2022 not 2021. In a previous note, we argued that for a free particle there exists a function A(x,t) such that d/dx (partial) A(x,t) = p ((1a)) and d/dt (partial) A(x,t) = -E ((1b)). In particular, we used p=E(v) v for the relativistic case and p=mov. We showed that A(x,t) is the classical action for a free particle Integral dt L = T L with v=x/t before the derivatives are taken. After, x/t is set to v. As a result, there is a nonrelativistic A(x,t)= T .5mvv and a relativistic one A= -mo sqrt(1-vv) (c=1). We argued that ((1a)) and ((1b)) are in the form of flow equations. Energy E flows through space out of a dx region (i.e there is an energy flux Ev) so if x is held constant, the change in time is -E. We also noted that one may obtain both the Schrodinger and Klein-Gordon equations from ((1a)) and ((1b)) (see reference in (1)). As a result, A(x,t) is linked to both the nonrelativistic and relativistic free particle actions, yields free particle quantum mechanical equations and may also be used to obtain the form of special relativity (as discussed in the reference in (1)). In this note, we wish to consider spin which is not present in ((1a)) and ((1b)). For both relativistic and nonrelativistic classical dynamics which are linked to A(x,t) one deals with numbers (scalars) and so no notion of spin arises. In obtaining both the relativistic Klein-Gordon equation and nonrelativistic Schrodinger equation from ((1a)) and ((1b)), one creates an eigenvalue equation i.e. id/dt exp(i Action) = E exp(iAction) ((2a)) and -id/dx exp(i Action) = p exp(i Action) ((2b)) which only hold for the free particle. One may then use E and p in expressions EE = pp + momo (where p=Ev= dAction/dx partial) and E = pp/2m + V(x) where p=mov=dAction/dx (partial). For the free particle, one has ((2a)) and ((2b)) without establishing the Klein-Gordon equation. Given that p=Ev is a vector, one may try to write ((2b)) as a vector, but given that one has operators acting on exp(i Action) one does not use a basis vector ei (ei dot ei=1), but rather a “basis” operator or a spin matrix. Thus, we argue that spin emerges in this way without having to linearize the Klein-Gordon equation. Interestingly, this approach only holds for fermions. For the photon, which is a boson, a Dirac-like equation may be obtained directly from a d/dt (partial) EL EL + BB + b grad dot (El x B) = 0 as shown in (2) (with a,b being constants). This again follows from a flow scheme.
In previous notes (1)(2), we argued one may write two flow/flux equations for a free particle using an unknown function A(x,t) i.e. d/dx (partial) A = E(v) v ((1a)) and d/dt (partial) A = -E(v) ((1b)) where E(v) is energy which is a function of rest mass and velocity v=constant. A(x,t), but after taking derivatives, x/t is set to v. As shown in (2), one may write A=tL(v) and find E(v)=mo/sqrt(1-vv) (c=1) (and p=Ev) i.e. the result of special relativity. Thus special relativity seems to follow directly from a flow/flux equation where motion v increases energy. Alternatively, one may obtain both relativistic/nonrelativistic quantum mechanics for a free particle, by converting ((1a)) and ((1b)) into differential equations i.e. id/dt exp(iA) = Eexp(iA) and -id/dx exp(iA) = pexp(iA) with A=-Et+px yielding the same result. In both cases, physical motion v has physical implications. For special relativity, energy changes from mo to mo/sqrt(1-vv) and there are effects on clocks and lengths. For quantum mechanics there is time and space resolution linked to dx→1/p and dt→1/E. In this note we try to investigate if there is a connection between the two. In particular we try to see why -Et+px within the free particle wavefunction exp(-iEt+px) is a Lorentz invariant.