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 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.
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 the Lorentz invariant -Et+px contains E and p which are physically different types of interaction variables. We argued that nature must somehow keep E and p independent in -Et+px (if nature also respects this Lorentz invariant). As a result, we suggested a math function exp(-iEt+ipx) which actually acts like a probability in terms of products and ensures conservation of E and p. Here, we wish to consider the situation from a different viewpoint. Like in Part 1, we do not postulate a priori any probability. Rather, we argue that there exist interactions in nature which conserve both E and p (elastic collisions) and that these two interaction variables are associated with different physical processes. For example, the notion of action-reaction is enough to see conservation of momentum, but conservation of energy is an independent process. In other words, E is like an enhanced inertia (mo and v), while p is like a moving inertia. An interaction which conserves both is complicated, yet we argue that the notion of the Lorentz invariant -Et+px should still hold for two interacting particles. For a single particle, the center-of-mass moves as x=vt and so one would expect that t and x in -Et+px are correlated. If one has two particles coming together to interact, then by conservation of E,p one has E1+E2 and p1+p2 (one dimension), but x and t for the two particles should be the same and it seems that one is not concerned about x=vt. Furthermore, a given outcome of the interaction E3+E4 and p3+p4 must also be linked to -Et+px and there must be conservation of total E and p. Thus: -(-E3-E4+E1+E2) t + (-p3-p4+p1+p2) x = 0. This suggests mathematically that t and x are independent variables in direct contrast to x=vt. Furthermore, the system must somehow ensure that x and t are independent for any Ei,Ej and pi,pk such that Ei+Ej=E1+E2 and pi+pj = p1+p2 as this is all the information that the Lorentz invariant -Et+px displays. Given that E and p are linked with different interactions, we suggest that there must exist an a priori property of a particle which allows for the above considerations. This would then explain how any Ei+Ej=E1+E2 and pi+pj = p1+p2 holds. In Part 1, we argued that this condition may occur if a particle is associated with fluctuating x and t values in terms of interactions given by exp(-iEt+ipx). The center-of-mass still moves as x=vt, but in an interaction it is the interaction process which is key, not the particle center-of-mass. One requires a description of such an interaction which can handle both E and p and is consistent with whatever information special relativity allows. We suggest that the exp(-iEt+ipx) is such a description, but that it carries the notion of periodicity in space and time and that this periodicity is then linked with E and p. This then becomes associated with Planck’s constant to link periodicity to E,p.
In previous notes, we presented a simple argument for obtaining the quantum free particle wavefunction exp(-iEt+ipx). We suggested that there are situations for which one cannot predict the outcome of an elastic collision and that given initial e1,e2 (energies) and p1,p2 (momentum vectors in 1-direction for simplicity), any ei,ej and pi,pj which conserve energy and momentum have the same product probability. Even in Newtonian elastic collisions of free particles, one sees calculations which allow any outcome which conserves momentum and energy. If the probability has the same real value for any free particle as no variable is being distributed and one wishes to impose Lorentz invariance, then exp(-iEt) and exp(ipx) represent the probabilities. This automatically gives rise to units in time and space, hbar/E and hbar/p (the hbar comes from considerations linked to a photon). One may ask, however: What is the real physics behind dx and dt? We argued in (1) that this physics is associated with force, in particular an intrinsic force. We considered a particle with rest mass mo and argued that this rest mass represents intrinsic force as it is proportional to Newton’s inertia and the force needed to set it in motion. If viewed from a moving frame, (0, mocc) maps to (E,p) with E containing the intrinsic inertial force as well as enhancements due to motion and p containing the intrinsic mo as well as the velocity vector. For a particle with rest mass, we suggest that a key idea is this notion of intrinsic force. We argued that one may consider the Lorentz invariant -Et+px = -mocc t1 and introduce dx=hbar/E, dt=hbar/p, dt1=hbar/(mocc) and dx1-> infinite as p->0. This leads to -E dt + p dx =0 or -E/dx + p /dt = 0. We then argued in (1) that p/dt is like an average force and from this we introduced exp(-iEt+ipx). Thus, dt and dx are linked with the notion of an average force. We suggest that this notion of intrinsic force is the reason behind linearizing -EE + p dot p = -momo cccc ((1)). -Edt+pdx=0 is too simple to show the geometry linked with rotational invariance etc in ((1)), yet at the same time ((1)) is not linear in the intrinsic force mo. This is the physical reason why ((1)) should be linearized via Dirac’s process, giving rise to spin ½. As a result, we postulate that a particle has an intrinsic force, in this case rest mass, which is directly linked with the probability exp(-iEt+ipx) and that one should be able to write an equation containing operators and the intrinsic force (in linear form) which also shows geometry. It is this equation which gives rise to spin. At this point, this is a postulate, i.e. speculation. It would be good if one could find an example in which these ideas arise naturally, i.e. a case in which one did not have to linearize an equation like ((1)) or make special arguments in order to obtain exp(-iEt+ipx). In that case, an equation linear in the intrinsic force would exist a priori and a direct link to exp(-iEt+ipx) would also naturally exist. We suggest that such an example does exist, namely for a photon. One may use the special relativistic equations developed for a particle with rest mass and set mo=0 to obtain E=[p] c for a photon. This is a fine equation, but unlike the rest mass case mo (proportional to the intrinsic force), there is no rest mass and no intrinsic force present for the photon. Certainly p (momentum) is linked with a force as both a particle with rest mass and a photon impart an impulse on a target, but momentum is not an intrinsic force, it is a consequential one. In the case of a rest mass, it arises because the rest mass (the intrinsic force) is seen to be moving. For a photon, one would then expect the existence of an intrinsic force which gives rise to momentum. We suggest that the electric field (together with the magnetic) represents this intrinsic force and that Maxwell’s equations allow one to directly write a linear equation in El (electric field) (no linearization required) which shows the geometry in the system. One may also explicitly show that El behaves as exp(-iEt+ipx) if one extends cos(-Et+ipx) to a more general complex number. In other words, the postulates made for the particle with rest mass mo seem to naturally arise in the case of the photon. This, we argue, is why the procedures for finding spin for a spin ½ particle with rest mass mo and a photon are so different even though both a photon and rest mass particle satisfy special relativity and are associated with exp(-iEt+ipx). It is the difference in the intrinsic force which is the key to finding spin, we speculate.
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).
Newtonian mechanics presents a simultaneous description of dynamics x(t) and interactions (F=dp/dt) because it assumes infinite resolution, i.e. dx->0, dt->0. We have argued in a previous note (1), that quantum mechanics follows from free particle quantum mechanics, which in turn follows from special relativity. Special relativity uses the notion of x=vt and provides formulas for E=mocc/sqrt(1-vv/cc) and p=mov/sqrt(1-vv/cc) even with no free particle quantum mechanical notions. We have also argued in previous notes, however, that these classical concepts are present in the Lorentz invariant -Et+px which we have argued (2) acts as a kind of free particle potential. This potential, however, has the same value for x, t and x+hbar/p, t+hbar/E and so we have suggested that free particle quantum mechanics is comprised of two parts. The first is a complex probability exp(-iEt+ipx) which describes possible interactions with a free particle and the second is x=vt. In other words, interactions and dynamics are split, but the interaction probability depends on classical notions such as x=vt, p and E. In the limit of hbar/p and hbar/E <<1, the interaction resolution becomes the Newtonian dx->0, dt.->0. Thus, as in (1), we argue that quantum and classical mechanics are intertwined. In (3), entitled Unifying Quantum and Classical Dynamics, a similar argument for the intertwining of quantum mechanics and classical mechanics is presented, but in a different manner. The basic argument of (3) seems to be that quantum mechanics, written in the Heisenberg approach, yields operator equations which are identical in form to classical equations, in particular, d/dt X(t) = P(t) and d/dt d/dt X(t) = -d/dx V( X(t)). Here X(t) and P(t) are operators given by X(t) = exp(iH t) X(0) exp(-iHt) (and a similar expression for P(t). We try to show that given that free particle quantum mechanics is directly linked to special relativity and hence to the acceptance of x=vt, that in the free particle case, any operator description of d/dt X(t) = P(t) cannot yield any result other than a classical one because no interaction is occurring. In other words, quantum mechanics is directly linked to classical mechanics at the free particle level. Later, one takes a superposition (OR probability addition) of exp(ipx)s, as in the case of bound states. In such a case, one deals with average interactions and so one must be careful when interpreting d/dt d/dt X(t) = -d/dx V( X(t)) as the system description is now an average one.
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.