A probability of heads/tails for a coin toss or a number for a die is really a frequency in time with no consideration of space. Similarly, a uniform distribution of stationary particles in space with P(x) = 1/L (one dimension restricted to a length L) is a probability in space, with no time appearing. Some phenomena (not necessarily linked to probability) necessarily involve space x and time t, such as a water wave. It is possible to fix x and watch the height of the wave change strictly in t, or take a film such that one sees wave heights at different x points with no reference to time (as one does not have a single crest, but a steady stream of waves). Another observation one may make is to sit on the crest and see x change with t (phase velocity) without any consideration of the wave height changing. The above examples are common in everyday life. We suggest that there is another probability-wave phenomenon which is common (reflection-refraction), but not all details are directly observed for a specific reason, namely because x and t can become decoupled directly at the n1-n2 index of refraction region. Typically, in the classical world one does not decouple x and t. In terms of observation, if one had a math probability given by exp(ipx) for a moving object, with the probability being linked somehow to interaction, then one would not see any changes in time. exp(ipx) is then neither directly visible in space or time, but may exist and have physical consequences. (Its existence would have to be proved experimentally.) The reason that decoupling of x,t may occur is that one does not have a physical measurement, such as a wave height. A physical wave height is described by a periodic function (-wt+kx), for which one cannot decouple t and k because the wave has a physical phase velocity of w/k and the function represents a measurement at x,t even though x,t and t+constant/w and x+ constant/k yield the same functional value. t+constant/w and x+ constant/k must represent another physical wave with the same phase velocity, but based on a different starting x,t, not x=0, t=0. This is because x and t cannot be decoupled as one observes a physical crest. If one has a math function exp(-iEt+ipx), then again one would have x,t marking a certain function value and t+constant/E and x+constant/p marking the same function value. It is certainly possible to have the particle move with a velocity v. In this case, however, the function does not represent an observable in x,t, like the height of a physical wave. In principle, there is no reason why t and x could not be decoupled. This means that the same function value (which presumably has some meaning) could be associated with two different x points for the same t value (or t removed altogether because x and t are decoupled). The question then becomes: How does one reconcile this strange math approach to physical observables? For example, if exp(-iEt+ipx) is considered to be a probability (but not of a measurable object in coupled spacetime which is the usual approach), how does one link this probability to measurements in spacetime? We note that since probabilities may apply only to time or space and noted in the first paragraph, that a decoupled exp(-iEt+ipx) probability lends itself very well to such one variable probabilities. For example, if only space is considered exp(-iEt+ipx) is replaced with exp(ipx) which only pertains to space, just like P(x)=1/L only pertains to space. The latter, however, is based on physical measurements at single points in space, while exp(ipx) is based on the same math function value occurring for two x points (x and x+constant/p) with no time consideration. Normally, one would need a time value directly associated with x, but such is not required for a probability in an OR situation. Different times may be associated with two different events without one needing to one these time values as one is specifically calculating a probability.
A probability of heads/tails for a coin toss or a number for a die is really a frequency in time with no consideration of space. Similarly, a uniform distribution of stationary particles in space with P(x) = 1/L (one dimension restricted to a length L) is a probability in space, with no time appearing. Some phenomena (not necessarily linked to probability) necessarily involve space x and time t, such as a water wave. It is possible to fix x and watch the height of the wave change strictly in t, or take a film such that one sees wave heights at different x points with no reference to time (as one does not have a single crest, but a steady stream of waves). Another observation one may make is to sit on the crest and see x change with t (phase velocity) without any consideration of the wave height changing. The above examples are common in everyday life. We suggest that there is another probability-wave phenomenon which is common (reflection-refraction), but not all details are directly observed for a specific reason, namely because x and t can become decoupled directly at the n1-n2 index of refraction region. Typically, in the classical world one does not decouple x and t. In terms of observation, if one had a math probability given by exp(ipx) for a moving object, with the probability being linked somehow to interaction, then one would not see any changes in time. exp(ipx) is then neither directly visible in space or time, but may exist and have physical consequences. (Its existence would have to be proved experimentally.) The reason that decoupling of x,t may occur is that one does not have a physical measurement, such as a wave height. A physical wave height is described by a periodic function (-wt+kx), for which one cannot decouple t and k because the wave has a physical phase velocity of w/k and the function represents a measurement at x,t even though x,t and t+constant/w and x+ constant/k yield the same functional value. t+constant/w and x+ constant/k must represent another physical wave with the same phase velocity, but based on a different starting x,t, not x=0, t=0. This is because x and t cannot be decoupled as one observes a physical crest. If one has a math function exp(-iEt+ipx), then again one would have x,t marking a certain function value and t+constant/E and x+constant/p marking the same function value. It is certainly possible to have the particle move with a velocity v. In this case, however, the function does not represent an observable in x,t, like the height of a physical wave. In principle, there is no reason why t and x could not be decoupled. This means that the same function value (which presumably has some meaning) could be associated with two different x points for the same t value (or t removed altogether because x and t are decoupled). The question then becomes: How does one reconcile this strange math approach to physical observables? For example, if exp(-iEt+ipx) is considered to be a probability (but not of a measurable object in coupled spacetime which is the usual approach), how does one link this probability to measurements in spacetime? We note that since probabilities may apply only to time or space and noted in the first paragraph, that a decoupled exp(-iEt+ipx) probability lends itself very well to such one variable probabilities. For example, if only space is considered exp(-iEt+ipx) is replaced with exp(ipx) which only pertains to space, just like P(x)=1/L only pertains to space. The latter, however, is based on physical measurements at single points in space, while exp(ipx) is based on the same math function value occurring for two x points (x and x+constant/p) with no time consideration. Normally, one would need a time value directly associated with x, but such is not required for a probability in an OR situation. Different times may be associated with two different events without one needing to one these time values as one is specifically calculating a probability.
Newtonian mechanics describes forward and backwards motion by x=vt and x= -vt. In order to understand this motion, one needs to create dx and dt units such that a particle with v moves from x,t to x+dx, t+dt. X and t are necessarily coupled and dx and dt are not zero (even in the dx->0, dt->0 limit). They are just very small. For a particle with v=0 (at rest), x and t are decoupled. Given that the particle may be at rest at any x in L, it is natural to define a probability P(x)dx = dx/L, even in Newtonian mechanics. For x=vt and x=-vt, however, x and t must be decoupled, but given different initial points, one can have different sets of x,t measurements. The key point we stress is that motion is linked with dx and dt and these do not have a fixed numerical value in Newtonian mechanics, but nevertheless the concept exists. In principle, Newtonian mechanics is probabilistic because one does not really know what occurs within dx and dt. It is this essential probability, we argue, that is manifested in quantum mechanics by defining actual dx and dt values, although in essence it is already present in Newtonian mechanics. Given that probability P(x) is well-defined and applies to v=0, one may postulate a dynamic probaiblity P1(v) as we have done in previous notes. If one wishes probability to be Lorentz invariant, one may write P1(-Et+px). At first, based on Newton’s x=vt and x=-vt, one would expect that x and t must be coupled through x=vt. The problem with this is that one may form an AND (product) scenario in probability theory. Furthermore, P1(-Et+px) does not contain initial point information.If one writes P1(v)*P1(-v), one should obtain P(x)=1/L because there is no motion. P(x) decouples x,t and so P1 must do the same. In other words, P1(-Et+px) contains decoupled x,t. This differs from Newton’s coupled x(t). If P1 does not increase or decrease indefinitely in x,t, then a solution is P1(-Et+px) = exp(-iEt+ipx). The question we ask is: How does exp(-iEt+ipx) contain more information than x=vt, x=-vt from the Newtonian scenario? In the Newtonian picture, in order to have a v and -v particle at the same x,t, they must be at different x,t values before and after. This suggests a disconnect in dx (and dt) for x and t. This disconnect is present in exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx), at least in the sin(px) term. The only new information contained in exp(-ipx-iEt) is that dx=hbar/p and dt=hbar/E. The uncertainty in x and t (due to dx and dt) is already present in Newtonian mechanics, but one ignores it by considering dx->0 and dt->0. The notion that dx and dt may be finite does not arise experimentally in classical calculations, but becomes apparent on atomic and nuclear scales. As a result, we argue that the probabilistic nature of a moving particle exp(-iEt+ipx) is already present in Newtonian mechanics, but one does not know how to fix dx and dt. As a result, it is not really the case that Newtonian mechanics is so greatly different from quantum free particle mechanics. The dx and dt lengths may be associated with uncertainty even in Newtonian mechanics and if this is considered, then Newtonian mechanics would not be dissociated with 2-slit interference and 1-D reflection-refraction at an n1-n2 index of refraction interface.
In (1), it is stated that “time flows continuously like a river’ … and is treated like a classical variable in Quantum Mechanics.” Here, we wish to consider the behaviour of time in quantum situations. We argue that a 4-space sense of time appears in quantum mechanics through exp(-iEt+ipx), but only intertwined with E (energy) and p (momentum), i.e. interactions involving these variables. Furthermore, there suggest that there must be a clear measure of t as well as an interaction changing E to use exp(-iEt) and a clear measure of x and an interaction changing p to use exp(ipx). In particular, we note that the classical equation x/t = v ensures that time and x are not on the same footing and this same equation holds in special relativity, so -Et+px = constant ((1)) which has the appearance of x and t being on the same footing (as well as (x,ct)) is subject to x/t=v (for xo=0, to=0). Thus, if x/t=v governs x and t information, then x and t are not independent. It seems that one would require fluctuations from these values. The fluctuations ranges could be linked, but actual t and values within the fluctuations would be independent. . We suggest it is possible to find a formalism which treats x and t independently from ((1)), but this formalism must be intertwined with E and p. In particular, one has free particle quantum mechanics in which delta t = hbar/E and delta x = hbar/p. X and t are decoupled in this scenario and so appear as independent because there is no notion of x/t=v when dealing with quantum type interactions. When dealing with such interactions, one uses the probability exp(-iEt+ipx), but this begs the question: How is this factor really used? We suggest that one must consider the following. Given exp(ipx), one uses it if p changes and there is a distinct measure of changing x in the problem. This scenario applies to two-slit interference, bound states with V(x) and one dimensional reflection-refraction at a point x=0. Given exp(-iEt), one uses it if there is a distinct interaction involving E, i.e. it changes and there is a distinct measure in time. Thus, two-slit interference, one dimensional reflection-refraction and elastic scattering from a V(x) are out because they don’t involve changes in E. A bound state with V(x) certainly involves changes in E, but does not have a direct measure of time t (independent of x). A bound state with V(x,t), however, does have a direct measure of t (being independent of x) and also involves energy changing and so exp(-iEt) may be used in this case, as will be shown.
Classically, probability is considered in terms of the number of possible outcomes. For example, a die toss has six possible outcomes and a coin toss, two. Probability calculations make use of probabilities and hence of the total number of possible outcomes. Thus, they are not deterministic calculations which follow “what happens” as in Newtonian mechanics. We suggest that if free particle quantum mechanics is probabilistic, it must also involve the notion of possible outcomes in an experiment and not represent a deterministic approach. We suggest, however, that something interesting applies to quantum mechanics because we have suggested that free particle quantum mechanics arises from the Lorentz invariant A = -Et+px. We note that there exist x,t trajectory points which follow x=vt. We also note, however, that one may introduce the idea of intervals dx, dt (because Newton’s dx→0, dt→0 is an idealization) and that A is unchanged for x,t and x+hbar/p , t+hbar/E. In other words, we suggest that there are intervals with probability about each x,t trajectory point. A trajectory point is associated with deterministic physics, but probability about this point is not. In other words, one has a kind of hybrid probability scheme. Thus, exp(ipx) and exp(-iEt) really represent fluctuation probabilities about a trajectory point x and t. These ranges of possible x and t fluctuations about a trajectory point x,t allow for further probability to occur in certain interactions. We consider two examples. The first is 2-slit interference which involves a deterministic particle moving along a straight line towards a 2-slit mechanism perpendicular to its path. At the 2-slit apparatus, one considers a probabilistic calculation as the uncertainty in x, i.e. dx=hbar/p allows for possible interaction with both slits. This involves considering all possible outcomes (i.e. motion through one slit or the other which is a classical situation), but exp(i p dot r1) and exp(i p dot r2) “sit on top” of these trajectories at the 2-slit apparatus and one has interference of the probabilities linked with each classical possible outcome. Thus, there are two sets of probabilities which are intertwined, the probability range hbar/p for each path and the two possible paths which have equal probability. One must consider the possible outcomes for both sets together. We suggest that a similar analysis applies to the case of 1-D reflection-refraction for x=0 at an n1-n2 index of refraction junction. Thus, we suggest that a deterministic free particle with x=vt may encounter probabilistic interaction situations, such as a two-slit apparatus or an n1-n2 index of refraction junction. These are probabilistic only because there is a probability fluctuation scheme in x associated with each deterministic x point. It is this probability which allows for a second probability to arise due to interaction with the slits or at the 1-D n1-n2 junction. In such a case, one must consider all possible outcomes which means that one does not only consider the exp(ipx) type probabilities, but also those linked with the physical interaction, i.e. two possible paths, one from each slit, or an incident, reflected and refracted photon at x=0 (n1-n2 junction). It is a combination of all possible paths which must be used in calculations. We thus suggest that even though there is a sense of determinism, i..e free particles move as x=vt and these exist in the 2-slit case and the 1-D reflection-refraction case, in a probabilistic calculation one must consider all probabilistic outcomes consistent with these. Thus, quantum mechanical calculations are true probabilistic calculations in the sense that they involve all possible outcomes in an analysis.
In a previous note (1) we argued that the free particle classical action A (relativistic or nonrelativistic) may be written in terms of v=x/t and then varied in x and t independently. One finds that dA/dx partial = p and dA/dt partial = -E implying A= -Et+px with x and t independent. This is the opposite of the classical mechanical idea of x(t). Creating an eigenvalue equation yields -id/dx partial exp(iA) = pexp(iA) and id/dt partial exp(iA) = Eexp(iA). exp(iA) plays the role of an unusual type of probability we argue which describes two dimensional periodicity (cos(px) and sin(px) ). We have argued that the quantum particle is the medium for a two dimensional wavelike motion of an energy-momentum wave. A wave type structure is needed to describe dynamics (like a classical wave), but unlike a classical wave two dimensions are required because there is no preference of any x point for a free particle. Both cos(px) and sin(px) both treat x in a preferential manner as their values vary with x. For a classical wave this is fine because the creation point of the wave imposes boundary conditions, but there is no such boundary condition imposed on a free particle. exp(ipx-iEt0 must somehow then link to P(x)=constant. One may note that exp(-iA)exp(iA) = 1 for the free particle. This may be argued to be linked to spatial invariance i.e. P(x)=constant where P(x) is not exp(ipx). Here we argue that exp(-iA)exp(iA) represents a product of two unusual probabilities , one for motion in a certain direction and the other for the time reversed scenario. If the quantum particle is the medium of an energy-momentum wave exp(-iEt+ipx), then the product of the regular and time reversed unusual probabilities cancel or undo each other. In other words one does not see any change in space as long as one has a noninteracting exp(-iEt+ipx) . Given that -id/dx is a linear operator this product yields a momentum of 0. We consider this idea and its implications on a momentum distribution Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) which may represent a bound state or other states. In particular, it seems that P(x)=W*(x,t)W(x,t) which yields a classical type of probability (P(x) real, positive and normalized to 1) is linked to a product (merging) of forward and time reversed situations so that any spatial density which remain due to the quantum particle acting as a medium for an energy-momentum wave (as well as the time reversed part) would represent an actual change in spatial density. exp(ipx) already contains two periodic spatial functions (cos(px) and sin(px)), but does not manifest it unless there is an interaction.
Classically, it is known that the probability density P(x)=1/L for a static particle confined randomly in a length L. If one has a moving particle, one sometimes sees that argument that the particle spends delta t =constant in each constant dx for a constant speed and so P(x)=1/L as well. In such a picture, there is no quantum W(x)= exp(ipx)/sqrt(L) or W(x)= exp(-ipx)/sqrt(L), accounting for motion in both directions. On the other hand, traditional quantum mechanics uses P(x) = W*(x)W(x) so one would have 1/sqrt(L) in this case for both p and -p. The interesting point is that exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx) are both dynamic (differ for p and -p), while W*(x)W(x) does not. We first argue that by considering dt in dx, one considers an event rather than describing a particle at an instant. dt implies there is an t(initial) and t(final) and one subtracts the first from the second. This is a description of an event and not a description of the moving particle we argue. Even in classical physics, motion is state with the particle being at x at t with v(x,t). Motion to the left or right represent different physical states (described by p and -p) and there is no reason that an instantaneous probability capturing the state of motion should not depend on this direction of motion as well. Furthermore, it should depend on p as this is a variable used in special relativity. The function W*(x)W(x) = 1/L is an AND statement of probability and removes the state of motion from the probability by combining p and -p (as an AND condition). This leaves a stationary state which obeys classical probability, i.e. the probability of a static object with a uniform probability to be anywhere within L. Thus, one has the classical equation: 1/L = F(-v) * F(v), with two solutions: F(v)=constant and F(v) = exp(-iEt+ipx). We describe in detail how we obtain the second solution using invariance of probability under a Lorentz transformation. One might argue that F(p,x)=constant means that the dynamic probability (the probability of the moving particle) is the same for p and -p when in fact the particles are in different states. In such a case, one has F((p,x) = 1/sqrt(L) and all dynamic features are lost. One would expect that such a probability would be useless in trying to describe a dynamic problem. (We discuss this in more detail). The alternative is exp(-iEt+ipx) which suggests that there is periodicity in x and t based on E and p. At first, this is equally strange from a classical point of view, one might argue. We suggest, however, that for x+dx and x-dx, exp(ipx) clearly defines the direction of motion which is essential in a dynamic problem. In other words, we argue that Newtonian mechanics uses dynamic variables x(t), v(x,t) etc to solve a problem. We suggest introducing a dynamic probability which considers instantaneous probaiblies (just as Newton considers instantaneous variables). The big question, from a classical point of view, is then: Why would one use probabilities at all when Newtonian mechanics describes deterministic physics? The answer, we argue, is that P(x)=1/L is an acceptable classical probability and one is allowed products in probability theory. We suggest that there is no reason why one cannot consider a dynamic probability F(p,x) such that F(p,x)*F(-p,x) = 1/L. Unless one can refute the existence of F(p,x) in classical theory, then mathematiaclly one has F(p,x) = exp(ipx) (because F(p,x)=constant makes no sense). The question then becomes whether such an F(p,x) may be used in solving any physical problem with the answer being yes. This formalism solves the 1-dimensional reflection-refraction problem of photons, assuming the photon to be a kind of particle moving at speed c. Newtonian mechanics does not solve this problem, it seems.
In Parts 1 and 2 (and references therein), we tried to make an argument for the existence of a dynamic instantaneous probability which depends on x. This probability exp(ipx) is essentially the quantum free particle picture. The full probability is exp(-iEt+ipx), but in the 1-D reflection-refraction problem considered, E is the same for the reflected, refracted and incident photons. This means that if one establishes OR (addition) equations for probability, exp(-iEt) factors out, leaving only exp(ipx) pieces. In this note, we reiterate that probability already exists in the 1-D reflection-refraction problem as does a conservation of probability equation, i.e. 1= probability(reflect) + probability(refract) ((1)). Why should there be any other probability and other OR equations? We argue that the above equation ((1)) is a time equation which does not focus on space. One does not need to know that the incident and refracted photon move to the right, while the reflected one moves to the left. One does not need to know that the incident and reflected photons are restricted to x<0 for the n1-n2 index of refraction junction at x=0 and the refracted photon to x>0. In other words, one does not need to know anything about space. There are simply two events which are measured in time called reflection and refraction. If ((1)) is a probability conservation equation in time, and spacetime places x and t on equal footing, one may ask: Where is the spatial probability equation? We suggest that one must be careful. Time is positive, but x may be positive or negative. This, we argue, suggests that there should not only be a spatial probability dependent on x, but also two equations which demonstrate the two one-dimensional directions of space. These two directions are associated with motion or momentum and so one could have a spatial probability and its conservation equation, but also a conservation of momentum equation linked with this spatial motion. It is the spatial picture which shows the two directions of p, not ((1)). As a result, we suggest that one should expect the existence of a spatial probability and that it should be associated with two conservation equations, unlike the time probability with its single equation ((1)). This spatial probability viewpoint leads to free particle quantum mechanics, but these quantum equations which solve the 1-D reflection-refraction problem, also yield ((1)) when one combines the two spatial conservation equations, i.e. removes the spatial direction feature in the second equation and focuses only on the two events, reflection and refraction.