We have argued in previous notes that both Newtonian mechanics and free particle quantum mechanics arise from special relativity. Thus, special relativity gives an expression for free particle energy and momentum and these are related to concepts of work. The Lorentz invariant -Et+px shows that x,t and x+hbar/p, t+hbar/E give the same solution to this potential-like term showing that there is stochasticity in the position and time delivery of interaction hits. In other words, even though the center-of-mass moves as x=vt, a momentum hit (proportional to rest mass mo) does not necessarily act at the center-of-mass. This gives the impression of shifts in probability, kinetic energy etc in the case of interference, i.e. interactions. For a single free particle, there is no interaction and -1/2m d/dx d/dx exp(ipx) = pp/2m exp(ipx). We argue that exp(ipx) is a probability and that in general one may add independent probabilities in an OR situation as in a 2-slit interference case. A bound state, however, is different because even though one adds weighted exp(ipx)s, they are part of a resonance or equilibrium and this is no longer an independent OR situation. We suggest that one uses a conditional probability when computing a Newtonian nonrelativistic conservation of energy equation to try to remove as much of the quantum features from this equation. As a result, one has: KEclassical(x) + V(x) = E = Sum over p pp/2m P(p/x) + V(x). One cannot bypass the fact that a quantum particle interacts differently from a classical one and that this involves a probabilistic granularity (wavelength), but classical notions of energy and energy conservation still exist. As a result, the bound state wavefunction Wn(x) = Sum over p an(p) exp(ipx) is not a usual OR sum, but is rather 1 over a normalization factor for an equilibrium picture. As a result, one cannot use Wn1(x)Wn2(x) = W(n1+n2) (x) as one would for independent probabilities. Furthermore, given that one has Wn(x) and Wn1(x)+Wn2(x) which are both of the form Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx), and both represent average energies, one needs a way to distinguish a resonance/equilibrium from a sum of resonance/equilibrium normalization factors. We suggest that the orthogonality of resonance Wn(x)’s provides this feature. The standard textbook explanation is based on Hermitian operators, but in the nonrelativistic case, we argue that one may obtain the result based on integration by parts based on the form of the p operator = -grad. Thus, it is ultimately the form exp(ipx) which leads to orthogonal bound state Wn(x)’s, together with the boundary condition that Wn(x)-->0 of x-> +infinite and -infinite.
We have argued in previous notes that both Newtonian mechanics and free particle quantum mechanics arise from special relativity. Thus, special relativity gives an expression for free particle energy and momentum and these are related to concepts of work. The Lorentz invariant -Et+px shows that x,t and x+hbar/p, t+hbar/E give the same solution to this potential-like term showing that there is stochasticity in the position and time delivery of interaction hits. In other words, even though the center-of-mass moves as x=vt, a momentum hit (proportional to rest mass mo) does not necessarily act at the center-of-mass. This gives the impression of shifts in probability, kinetic energy etc in the case of interference, i.e. interactions. For a single free particle, there is no interaction and -1/2m d/dx d/dx exp(ipx) = pp/2m exp(ipx). We argue that exp(ipx) is a probability and that in general one may add independent probabilities in an OR situation as in a 2-slit interference case. A bound state, however, is different because even though one adds weighted exp(ipx)s, they are part of a resonance or equilibrium and this is no longer an independent OR situation. We suggest that one uses a conditional probability when computing a Newtonian nonrelativistic conservation of energy equation to try to remove as much of the quantum features from this equation. As a result, one has: KEclassical(x) + V(x) = E = Sum over p pp/2m P(p/x) + V(x). One cannot bypass the fact that a quantum particle interacts differently from a classical one and that this involves a probabilistic granularity (wavelength), but classical notions of energy and energy conservation still exist. As a result, the bound state wavefunction Wn(x) = Sum over p an(p) exp(ipx) is not a usual OR sum, but is rather 1 over a normalization factor for an equilibrium picture. As a result, one cannot use Wn1(x)Wn2(x) = W(n1+n2) (x) as one would for independent probabilities. Furthermore, given that one has Wn(x) and Wn1(x)+Wn2(x) which are both of the form Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx), and both represent average energies, one needs a way to distinguish a resonance/equilibrium from a sum of resonance/equilibrium normalization factors. We suggest that the orthogonality of resonance Wn(x)’s provides this feature. The standard textbook explanation is based on Hermitian operators, but in the nonrelativistic case, we argue that one may obtain the result based on integration by parts based on the form of the p operator = -grad. Thus, it is ultimately the form exp(ipx) which leads to orthogonal bound state Wn(x)’s, together with the boundary condition that Wn(x)-->0 of x-> +infinite and -infinite.
It is sometimes stated in the literature (1) that quantum mechanics is based on conditional probabilities. If this is the case, one would expect such conditional probabilities to appear in a single particle bound state. A free quantum particle is associated with a probability to interact of exp(ipx) (linked to 2-slit interference, 1-D reflection-refraction at an n1-n2 junction etc), but the kinetic energy and momentum are pp/2m (nonrelativistic) and p at all x even though each x has a different phase according to exp(ipx). The momentum is p at x, but the probability for an impulse hit at x is not the same even though its modulus is. When different probabilities exp(ipx) add in an OR situation, this leads to a spatial pattern which no longer has a modulus of 1, i.e. translational invariance is broken. Such a pattern also occurs for a single particle bound state W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). W(x) can have 0 points, but the average kinetic energy -1/2m d/dx dW/dx / W is not 0 at such a point. One has, on average (a statistical calculation), no average interaction at such an x point. One might ask why this should have anything to do with average kinetic energy? If one writes a conservation law: KEave(x) + V(x) = 0, then one considers kinetic energy interacting with potential energy. If there is no interaction at some x point for a given p (not W(x) on average), then it should not be part of the conservation of energy at this point. One is only interested in kinetic energy which interacts with potential energy at each x point. Thus, a(p) exp(ipx) + a(-p) exp(-ipx) (with a(p)=a(-p)) may have a 0 point at some x and so it does not have an average interaction at such a point, i.e. pp/2m (a(p)exp(ipx) + a(-p)exp(-ipx)) = 0. As a result, in a bound state, one considers kinetic energy per p, -p multiplied by the average probability (p, -p). Different a(p)exp(ipx) + a(-p)exp(-ipx) (a(p)=a(-p)) weights in this average picture indicate the extent to which the particle interacts. This idea holds for a single p,-p pair, but one must normalize over all such pairs, leading to the idea of a conditional probability. Given that hbar/p must be “created physically” in space so to speak, one must have interaction probability which creates this physical situation even in cos(px)+ i sin(px). This leads to the idea of interaction probability being 0, positive, but <1, or even negative and it is the interaction which allows one to consider conservation of energy with a potential V(x) in the first place. As a result, one cannot include a full pp/2m if there is negative, 0 or only particle interaction. Thus, pp/2m is multiplied by 2 a(p)cos(px) /W(x) for a(p)=a(-p).
We try to consider free particle and single bound state quantum mechanics from the viewpoint of classical physics. We first assume that a free particle moves as x=vt. Secondly, we assume that dx and dt cannot be 0 as in Newtonian mechanics, but must be finite. This begs the question: How does one measure dx and dt? If one can measure a particle at a given x and t, then dx→0, dt→0. Thus, finite dx, dt means that a given p=constant and pp/2m=kinetic energy (nonrelativistic) interact with a force over a finite dx. In other words, one does not know where the interaction occurs within dx. As long as the free particle moves without interacting, then x=vt and there is no interest in any dx or interactions. For example, one may measure very large x and t ranges. Even if there are dx and dt effects at the start and end points, these are small compared to the large x and t values. As a result, one has a F(x,p) probability within dx, which repeats itself for the next dx (i.e. is periodic), where F is a probability for a p impulse hit at x within dx. At the same time, the particle moves with x=vt it seems within dx. In general, one might then think that F(x,p) and x=vt are decoupled. In previous notes, we have argued that one way to couple F(x,p) and x=vt is through special relativity, i.e. A = -Et+px. X and t values used would presumably satisfy x=vt, but for any x,t one has x+hbar/p and t+hbar/E as solutions yielding the same A value and so might consider dx= hbar/p and dt=hbar/E. The question we ask here is whether one may arrive at this conclusion without using special relativity. The answer seems to be that one can if one suggests that F(x,p) must contain information making it consistent with x=vt, i.e. with every x and t point having the same weight. Clearly, however, each x,t do not have the same weight within dx and dt, but are rather governed by F(x,p). This means, however, that F(x,-p) also represents a probability distribution and so if one has F(x,p)F(x,-p) there is no momentum at a given x point. In such a case, the distribution within dx must disappear and one must have a uniform distribution. This holds even if F(x,p) has the same dx value for any p. Thus, F(x,p)F(x,-p) = constant and must be periodic in x. This implies that F(x,p) = 1/F(x,-p) for constant=1. Given that F(x,p) =0 at the initial and final points of dx, then F(x,-p) = infinite at these points and that is not allowable. Thus, one is forced to use complex variables and try exp(i g(p) x). If g(p) is a function of p (i.e. not a constant), then conservation of momentum implies that exp(i g(p1) x) exp(i g(p2) x) = exp(i g(p1+p2) x), suggesting exp(ipx). What, however, if g(p) = constant? In such a case, one has issues creating an average kinetic energy: ( Sum over p a(p) exp(i constant x) pp/2m) / (Sum over p a(p) exp(i constant x) ((1)) This leads to a kinetic energy which does not depend on x and cannot be used with V(x) in a conservation of energy equation. Thus, we choose exp(ipx). Note: there is no reason to choose a(p,x) because the physics of finite dx and dt is restricted to exp(i constant x). Finally, we try to explain why the same dx=hbar/p and dt=hbar/E together with x=vt follow from special relativity.
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 a classical bound state, conservation of energy: p(x)p(x)/2m + V(x) = E holds for all x. Examined in a statistical sense, one may consider each constant dx to have a probability density proportional to dt(x) where v(x)=velocity =dx/ dt(x). Thus the particle is followed in time. In quantum mechanics, even for a free particle exp(ipx), there exists a wavelength hbar/p. Within this region one cannot follow the particle in time. In fact, there are two probability distributions cos(px) and the shifted sin(px). The two dimensional nature of exp(ipx) is required to describe the direction of motion. There exists a mathematical abstraction or average which holds for any x within the wavelength and yields the classical x= p/m t. Thus there is a duality, but within a wavelength one cannot follow the particle exactly using x=p/m t. Rather there is no time and one thinks of probabilities to be at one x or another. The operator -id/dx yields the abstracted or average momentum at any x and (-id/dx)(-id/dx) average pp if one divides by probability. In other words: (-id/dx) exp(ipx)/ exp(ipx) = p and (-id/dx) (-id/dx) exp(ipx) / exp(ipx) = pp. These then apply to any x point. For a bound state, exp(ipx) is replaced with W(x)= Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). Thus p and -p are included together. From a statistical point of view this is fine because a quantum bound state is described in terms of energy conservation (time-independent Schrodinger equation). Unlike the classical case, the probabilities of p and -p differ, i.e. exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx). The sum exp(ipx)+exp(-ipx) yields cos(px) which is the resolution probability distribution. Taking -d/dx d/dx of W(x) and then dividing by W(x) yields the average kinetic energy at any x within the wavelength. In other words this is the average kinetic energy which matches the classical result for any energy level. As a result, prms(x)prms(x)/2m + V(x) = En holds for any quantum level, but prms(x) is an rms average value which bypasses wave structure. That is why the exp(ipx) for p,-p and -id/dx must be used to calculate average quantities within a wavelength. Many different p,-p combinations are needed so that at each x within a wavelength the correct average kinetic energy value appears. Now consider a high energy level and choose a fixed dx length to represent a tiny region in the system, a cutoff for which there is no further resolution. p(x) is constant within this region. If hbar/ prms(x) <= dx, the wave structure of quantum mechanics does not play a role. (Note that for an oscillator, W(x) is a set of crests and troughs with different heights and widths.) As a result, there is no need for d/dx acting on W(x) to describe average kinetic energy within dx. The average kinetic energy is prms(x)prms(x)/2m and dx is treated like a point. Only if exp(ipx) is used does -id/dx yield the proper classical result. (An alternative scenario is that d/dx acting on a function divided by the function yields the same result as acting on exp(ipx) divided by exp(ipx) e.g. -d/dx d/dx cos(px)/cos(px) = -d/dx d/dx exp(ipx) / exp(ipx). If one has the quantum kinetic energy expression -1/2m d/dx dW/dx / W ((1)) and considers one momentum, namely prms(x), and uses W(x)= cos( prms(x) x), then with prms(x) constant at x, ((1)) yields prms(x) prms(x)/ 2m. Thus d/dx has not broken down even though it does not describe motion within dx which is now a point. A problem arises, however, if one considers Wn(x)= Wn1(x)Wn2(x) as this yields an equation containing dW1/dx dW2/dx/ (W1W2). Then the above procedure yields: dW1/dx/W1 (prms(x) sin(prms(x) x) / cos(prms(x) x). This does not match the classical value. Furthermore, dW2/dx/ W2 contains +prms(x) and -prms(x) with different weights while a classical scenario is -pP(-p,x) + pP(p,x) = 0 because P(-p,x)=P(p,x) while quantum mechanically it doesn’t. We analyze this situation and conclude that d/dx breaks down/ does not apply in the classical limit because it is used to calculate average values within a wavelength only. It only “works” if the effect of the derivative(s) on a function divided by the function is the same as the effect on exp(ipx) divided by exp(ipx). If a wavelength fits within dx, there is no need to calculate values at any lower x level and d/dx is not needed. In fact, there is a single prms(x) value in dx and the average time links different dx’s so that one follows the particle (on average in the sense that one ignores structure within each x) by x(t). As a practical consequence, using -id/dx together with the wavefunction W(x) can lead to problems in the classical limit because d/dx does apply. In short, using -id/dx operating on Wn(x) divided by Wn(x) leads to issues unless it produces the same effect as acting on exp(ipx) divided by exp(ipx).
Quantum mechanics utilizes a wavefunction W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) (in time independent cases) with exp(ipx) being what we call a free particle complex probability. In such a case, W(x) is an OR scenario of these various probabilities. We have argued in previous notes that exp(ipx) is the probability for a p impulse hit at x, even if the center-of-mass of the particle is not at x. This means that impulse hits may occur probabilistically in space as in the 2-slit example which requires adding two probabilities as an OR case for each slit. The point then seems to be that W(x) (or even its momentum frozen form W*(x)W(x) gives a profile in space of the number of interactions (various p impulse hits) at each x. Classically, the kinetic energy (nonrelativistic) is pp/2m. In a classical bound problem this kinetic energy is considered to exist (in calculations) at the center-of-mass, but forces are also said to be rendered at this point so pp/2m, the center-of-mass and the force hit point all coincide. In quantum mechanics, a p impulse hit and the center-of-mass do not coincide. If p is said to hit at a probabilistic x, then it seems that pp/2m should also be seen to exist at this same hit point. A physical interaction point verifies in a sense the location of pp/2m in a probabilistic manner, i.e. a(p) exp(ipx)/W(x) is the probability used to calculate KEaverage and this is based on impulse hit locations. By normalizing using W(x), one removes the relative number of average hits at each x and obtains a pure energy value at x. (This may then be used in a KEave(x)+V(x)=E equation.) On average W(x) has zero points, which means that if one considers W*(x)W(x) to represent the motion-frozen-out spatial distribution of hits, then no hits are rendered at certain x points (on average). One might argue then that the particle cannot exist at x, but the center-of-mass can exist anywhere. One might next argue that there is no kinetic energy at x, but that cannot be true because 1/2m d/dx d/dx W has the same 0 points as W and the two divide. Thus, there is average kinetic energy at all bound points and this represents an average based on impulse hits (exp(ipx)). Classically, if one has many particles in a potential, one may write density(x)V(x) to find the potential energy of the particles. This implies that the particles interact with V(x), e.g. neutrinos usually do not interact. Density(x) in a classical sense means that the center-of-mass and force hit point are both at x. In quantum mechanics, exp(ipx) represents the probability for a force hit point, W(x) represents an average and W*(x)W(x) represents a motion-frozen average hit point. W*(x)W(x)V(x) seems to represent the average potential energy of the particle at x because W*(x)W(x) is linked with interaction. Even if a particle is not present, however, there is energy V(x) in space. It seems that if W*(x)W(x)=0 at some x, then there is no average particle interaction at this point, but there is still average kinetic energy Sum over p a(p)pp/2m exp(ipx) / W(x) based on the probability for average probability hits. The key idea is that one normalizes probability by dividing by W(x) in the average kinetic energy calculation. W*(x)W(x) is normalized not at x, but integrating over dx and setting this value to 1. One has relative hit at x values represented by W*(x)W(x). For exp(-ipx)exp(ipx)=1, each dx has the same average hit value (with one not being able to distinguish details in hbar/p, i.e. this is a motion frozen result. The question then becomes: Why would one write: W*(x)W(x) KEave(x)? One might argue that this term occurs if one takes the quantum mechanical equation: KEave(x) +V(x) = En and multiplies by W*(x)W(x). One may ask: Does V(x)W*(x)W(x) have physical meaning? V(x) is the potential energy at x. The average interaction probability with V(x) at x should be W(x)V(x) and not W*(x)W(x)V(x). The latter is a classical mechanical idealization. If W*(x)W(x) is 3 at x1 and 2 at x2, then it is as if the particle interacts 1.5 times more at x1 and so if V(x1)=V(x2), then this approach assumes 1.5 the interaction energy at x1. KEave(x), however, is simply free particle energy (average) at x and one does not need to take this average value and multiply it by the relative number of interactions at x. W(x) has zero points meaning that there is no interaction at such a point on average. KEave(x) on the other hand is the average energy at x based on the particle kinetic energy presence pp/2m being at the point of an impulse hit. This does not mean that an interaction is occurring with V(x) at this point in this formalism. Even a free particle has an exp(ipx) probability when it is not interacting. The sum Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) means that all of the interactions linked with x have occurred and one is making an OR calculation. KEave(x) is free particle kinetic energy at x and V(x) is potential energy (not interaction potential energy with the particle). Multiplying by W*(x)W(x) is a classical minded approach to creating a classical equation: density(x) (KEave(x)+V(x)) = E density(x) ((1)) Here KEave(x) would represent the average kinetic energy of a single particle and density(x) would be the average number of particles at x. density(x)KE(x) has a clear meaning. W*(x)W(x) KEave(x) on the other hand is different. KEave(x) is actually the classical kinetic energy value at x and so it is not clear why one would multiply it by W*(x)W(x). W*(x)W(x) represents the probability for an impulse hit at x in a p-frozen out picture. The notion of exp(ipx) (i.e. probability for a p hit at x) is already buried within the quantum calculation of KEave(x) (which yields the classical value). In order to find the physical meaning of W*(x)W(x) multiplied by KEave(x) or V(x) it seems that one has broken dx into equally sized segments which correspond to different detection hits of the particle. This is then somehow equated with the presence of the particle per unit time in dx which is then somehow rendered as the average energy at x multiplied by the detected presence at x through a steady rate of measurement/time. Thus, multiplying by W*(x)W(x) is not multiplying by a physical density.
A classical bound state does indicate the direction of motion if one only considers kinetic energy pp/2m. It is the vector quantities, p and x, which indicate direction. In quantum mechanics, a free particle interaction probability (for impulse hits) is directional, i.e. exp(ipx) not= exp(-ipx). Unless one has a single value of pp/2m, KE+= sum over p>0 a(p)exp(ipx) pp/2m / Sum over p>0 a(p)exp(ipx) is not equal to KE- even if a(p)=a(-p). In order to use conservation of energy in quantum mechanics, one is forced to consider both a(p)exp(ipx) +a(p)exp(-ipx) with a(p)=a(-p) which is the correct statistical weighting for a bound state. One may note that exp(ipx) is a probability for interaction and is separate from x=p/m t even though the notion of this velocity is tied to the fact that nonrelativistic kinetic energy is pp/2m. As a result, one must use an average scenario for calculating kinetic energy which seems to be tied to an ensemble average. Such a notion should hold for all energy levels. If one considers the classical limit, then one has p(x)p(x)/2m in a tiny dx. If one were to simply use 1/sqrt(p)exp(ip(x) x)/sqrt(dx) in dx, then Integral W*W dx in dx = C/p. The relative weight of two adjacent dx regions is: p1/ p2 = p1 / (p1+dp). This is equivalent to probabilities proportional to dt= dx/v, where p=mv. Thus, the area represented by W*W captures the number of possible interactions in dx if attempted hits have a fixed period. We argue, however, that given the bound state conservation recipe, one must use a(p) (exp(ipx)+exp(-ipx)) to describe a dx (with p=p(x)), even in the high energy limit. exp(ipx) is simply an interaction pattern (and is a probability) and so if the particle is bound, the correct statistical thing to do for an ensemble seems to be to combine exp(ipx) with exp(-ipx). We then show that quantum mechanics lowers the number of interactions in an area with increased speed more than the classical case. In particular, we find instead of p/(p+dp), 1- dp/p - 2dp/(pp).