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.
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 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 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).
Special relativity seems to be associated with linking physical relations as seen in one frame with those as seen in a frame moving at a speed relative to such a frame. A constant speed is often used for the moving frame. This suggests that classically there is a special frame for a particle with rest mass called a rest frame. In such a case, one simply introduces a parameter for rest mass and does not worry about the complicated motion and interactions which actually create the rest mass. It seems that even quantum mechanics, which considers a particle to be moving as one does not know its location, one uses the idea of a potential V(x) which in principle is associated with a very large rest mass, presumably at rest as no variables of such a rest mass appear in the Klein-Gordon or Dirac equations. It seems that one uses a preferred frame when solving relativistic quantum mechanical equations. Furthermore, given V(x) and a bound state with exp(-i E bound t), E applies to the overall bound system, not to a possible exp(ipx) constituent. The special relativistic invariant equation seems to exist at the system level, like with the rest mass and one may apparently calculate E in the special rest frame of the large mass and hence find a rest mass of the bound system, i..e large rest mass*cc + mo cc + E, mo is the rest mass of the single bound particle. As a result of the use of the special rest mass frame for the V(x) producing large rest mass, it seems that one does not have to worry about special relativistic constraints on the interaction with V(x), as only one frame is involved. In other words, a bound calculation is about finding a new rest mass for an overall new system. Then this system may be used in Lorentz boosts. One simplifies by working in the rest frame of the mass creating V(x). Perhaps surprisingly then, we note that exp(-iEt+ipx) for a free particle is Lorentz invariant and in fact must be Lorentz invariant for the following reason. Imagine that one wishes to create a probability for free particles which is linked with conservation of momentum. Any p must have the same real value weight because for free particles there is no bias for one p or the other. There is, however, a bias for a p1 and p2. It should have the same probability as a p3 and p4, if p1+p2 = p3+p4. (We use one dimension for simplicity.) As a result, exp(ip) seems to be a probability which respects these conditions. The problem is that one may have p=m1v1=m2v2 hence (E1,p) and (E2,p). With respect to momentum, it is irrelevant if one particle has E1 and the other E2, but not if one does a Lorentz boost. Then, in one case: p→ g(v) p + g(v) v E1 and in the second, p→ g(v) p + g(v)vE2. Here g(v) =1/sqrt(1-vv/cc). In other words, p is the same for each particle in one frame and not in the other which violates conservation of momentum because in frame 1 both particles can complete the same conservation of momentum equation, but in the second frame this is not the case, because each has a different momentum. Thus, exp(ip) cannot hold. One requires a linear form in p which is Lorentz invariant, i.e. exp(-iEt+ipx), we argue (and have done so in previous notes). We see now that momentum probability is linked with space in exp(ipx). The idea seems to be that for free colliding particles there is no preferred frame and the probabilities used must reflect this Lorentz invariance. As a result, we argue that a free particle probability in E,p arises because of Lorentz invariance, but then apply it to a V(x) problem and no longer worry about Lorentz invariance at the interaction level. V(x) with no associated rest mass variables assumes a rest frame for the V(x) producing mass. A Lorentz boost which then invalidates exp(ip), would only apply to the total rest mass of the bound particle system which has no overall momentum. It seems that one does apply the Lorentz transformation to the interaction of exp(ipx)’s with V(x). One is only interested in the overall bound system as a single entity for special relativity. As a result, one may only impose momentum considerations as V(x) is a spatial function and one must link it with exp(ipx). In fact, one may write V(x) = Sum over k Vk exp(ikx) to associate it with momentum hits linked with Vk energies, which already moves away from the idea of special relativity as Vk and k are not linked as a 4-vector. The idea of exp(ip1x)exp(i k1x) = exp(ip2x)exp(ik2x), however, seems to still hold (as it does for free particles), linking these two values (i.e. Vk1 and Vk2) with (p1+k)(p1+k) exp(i (p1+k)x). Lorentz invariance for a particle with rest mass seems to be linked with the idea that one ultimately has a rest frame for the particle. One then establishes a relation between the rest mass in one frame and its new E and p as seen by another frame. One does not, however, need to impose Lorentz invariance conditions on the interaction which creates the rest mass it seems. For example, exp(-iEt+ipx) is the Lorentz form used to describe a free particle, but exp(ipx) is the only portion used to describe its interaction with V(x) in the rest frame of the large mass creating V(x). Furthermore, exp(-iEt+ipx) ensures conservation of energy and p for a free particle, but in an interaction case, that does not happen as the potential may absorb energy.
In physics (including classical physics), conservation of momentum is always considered, but one must be more careful with conservation of energy as it may include forms like sound etc. As a result, there is a tendency to focus on conservation of momentum all of the time, and conservation of particle energy only in elastic collisions. In addition to this, one may think of a particle striking a target, in which case two equal momentum (but different energies due to different v speed and mo rest mass) cause the same impact. In the case of an interaction with a potential, however, it is strictly energy considerations which are important classically, i.e one uses p dot p /2m + V(x) = E. Knowing momentum without rest mass is not sufficient. One may consider it unusual that one may consider two different scenarios, one which focuses only on momentum (impulse) or conservation of momentum in collisions while only energy is the focus in classical bound states or motion in V(x). Given the classical focus on momentum, imagine that one wishes to describe all free particles with different momenta as a uniform probability distribution such that a product of two probabilities for p1,p2 is the same as for p3,p4 if p1+p2=p3+p4. (We use 1-dimension for simplicity.). One cannot use P= 1/n because p is absent and n->infinite. In one sense, all particles must have the same probability, but at the same time must contain extra information related to p for the conservation of p part of the problem. The notion of a uniform distribution is independent of conservation of momentum, hence of p momentum. Conservation of momentum requires an explicit presence of p. As a result, there seems to be a paradox. One may, however, resolve this paradox by arguing that a probability is a mathematical way of presenting a subset of the information present. If one argues for a uniform probability, then it does not need to contain p, and one would have 1 as an unnormalized probability for any free particle p. A different probability (representing a different subset of information) which respects all free particles as having the same weight, but includes p can also be constructed, namely exp(i C p). C is a constant introduced for unit issues. In this case, the modulus gives all free particle probabilities with p the same weight, but the presence of p allows one to have conservation of momentum. Given that momentum is the key variable that is conserved in classical physics, one should be satisfied with exp(i C p). One might argue that there is no need to consider energy E. We note, however, that if one has p, E1 and -p, E2 in a frame, then in a frame moving with -v, one has gp+gvE1= p1’ and p2’ = -gp + gvE2. Adding yields gv(E1+E2) and so energy automatically appears and cannot be discarded. Furthermore for p, E1 and -p, E2, exp(i C 0) is exp(i C gv(E1+E2)) as seen in the moving frame and so one is forced to consider conservation of energy together with momentum and include both p and E in the more detailed probability. In other words, special relativity automatically links p and E in a 4-vector, leading to the idea that both are important. We argue that one cannot simply consider exp(i C p) due to special relativity. Both E and p must be considered together and this is a key idea, we argue, because if one wishes to have a Lorentz invariant probability, it must be in E and p, i.e. -Et+px. Instead of having a probability for an interaction with p given by exp(i C p) , one has exp(-iEt+ipx) and we argue that this must have the same value in all frames for a particular interaction. One may note that E and p are, on the one hand, separated allowing for impulse hit versus E related interactions, but that overall the probability for interaction includes both and it is the full -Et+ipx which must be invariant. This further suggests that if one does not artificially force an interaction to occur at the center-of-mass, then x,t and x+hbar/p, t+hbar/E are equally good points for the interaction. We argue that there is no need to force x=vt because exp(-iEt+ipx) * exp(iEt+ipx) already shows that one has uniformity, not only for any p,E, but also for any x, t, as there are now four variables. Thus, there is no reason to enforce x=vt in exp(-iEt+ipx), when considering an interaction, we argue. This means that one has two possible interactions at different x,t values, i.e. x,t and x+hbar/p, t+hbar/E. If one is unable to follow the interaction in time, but may follow it in space as in the case of 2-slits about hbar/p apart or for a potential V(x), then one may use the exp(ipx) part of the interaction probability piece by itself. Thus, we argue that special relativity does not allow one to treat p independently of E. For example, for p values that are the same in one frame, but have E1, E2, will be different in another frame. One must consider E and p together and so instead of creating a probability for p alone, one must create one for E,p and then impose Lorentz invariance which leads to different x,t pairs yielding the same probability value for an interaction, i.e. free particle quantum mechanics.
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.