My last posts were all about a possible *physical *interpretation of the quantum-mechanical wavefunction. To be precise, we have been interpreting the wavefunction as a gravitational wave. In this interpretation, the real and imaginary component of the wavefunction get a *physical *dimension: force per unit mass (newton per kg). The inspiration here was the structural similarity between Coulomb’s and Newton’s force laws. They both look alike: it’s just that one gives us a force per unit *charge *(newton per *coulomb*), while the other gives us a force per unit *mass*.

So… Well… Many nice things came out of this – and I wrote about that at length – but last night I was thinking this interpretation may also offer an explanation of relativistic length contraction. Before we get there, let us re-visit our hypothesis.

**The geometry of the wavefunction**

The elementary wavefunction is written as:

ψ = *a·e*^{−i(E·t − p∙x)/ħ} = *a·cos*(**p**∙**x**/ħ – E∙t/ħ) *+** i·a·sin*(**p**∙**x**/ħ – E∙t/ħ)

Nature should not care about our conventions for measuring the phase angle clockwise or counterclockwise and, therefore, the ψ = *a·e*^{i}^{[E·t − p∙x]/ħ} function may also be permitted. We know that *cos*(θ) = *cos**(**–*θ) and *sin*θ = *–**sin**(**–*θ), so we can write: * *

ψ = *a·e*^{i}^{(E·t − p∙x)/ħ} = *a·cos*(E∙t/ħ – **p**∙**x**/ħ) *+** i·a·sin*(E∙t/ħ – **p**∙**x**/ħ)

*= **a·cos*(**p**∙**x**/ħ – E∙t/ħ) *–** i·a·sin*(**p**∙**x**/ħ – E∙t/ħ)

The vectors **p** and **x** are the the momentum and position vector respectively: **p** = (p_{x}, p_{y}, p_{z}) and **x** = (x, y, z). However, if we assume there is no uncertainty about **p** – not about the direction nor the magnitude – then we may choose an x-axis which reflects the direction of **p**. As such, **x** = (x, y, z) reduces to (x, 0, 0), and **p**∙**x**/ħ reduces to p∙x/ħ. This amounts to saying our particle is traveling along the x-axis or, if p = 0, that our particle is located somewhere on the x-axis. Hence, the analysis is one-dimensional only.

The geometry of the elementary wavefunction is illustrated below. The x-axis is the direction of propagation, and the y- and z-axes represent the real and imaginary part of the wavefunction respectively.

Note that, when applying the right-hand rule for the axes, the vertical axis is the y-axis, not the z-axis. Hence, we may associate the vertical axis with the cosine component, and the horizontal axis with the sine component. You can check this as follows: if the origin is the (x, t) = (0, 0) point, then cos(θ) = cos(0) = 1 and sin(θ) = sin(0) = 0. This is reflected in both illustrations, which show a left- and a right-handed wave respectively. We speculated this should correspond to the two possible values for the quantum-mechanical spin of the wave: +ħ/2 or −ħ/2. The cosine and sine components for the left-handed wave are shown below. Needless to say, the cosine and sine function are the same, except for a phase difference of π/2: sin(θ) = cos(θ − π/2).

As for the wave velocity, and its direction of propagation, we know that the (phase) velocity of any wave F(kx – ωt) is given by *v*_{p} = ω/k = (E/ħ)/(p/ħ) = E/p. Of course, the momentum might also be in the negative x-direction, in which case k would be equal to -p and, therefore, we would get a negative phase velocity: *v*_{p} = ω/k = *–*E/p.

**The de Broglie relations**

E/ħ = ω gives the frequency in time (expressed in radians per second), while p/ħ = k gives us the wavenumber, or the frequency in space (expressed in radians per meter). Of course, we may write: f = ω/2π and λ = 2π/k, which gives us the two de Broglie relations:

- E = ħ∙ω = h∙f
- p = ħ∙k = h/λ

The frequency in time is easy to interpret. The wavefunction of a particle with more energy, or more mass, will have a *higher density in time* than a particle with less energy.

In contrast, the second *de Broglie *relation is somewhat harder to interpret. According to the p = h/λ relation, the wavelength is *inversely *proportional to the momentum: λ = h/p. The velocity of a photon, or a (theoretical) particle with zero rest mass (m_{0} = 0), is *c* and, therefore, we find that p = m* _{v}*∙

*v*= m

*∙*

_{c}*c*= m∙

*c*(all of the energy is kinetic). Hence, we can write: p∙

*c*= m∙

*c*

^{2}= E, which we may also write as: E/p =

*c*. Hence, for a particle with zero rest mass, the wavelength can be written as:

λ = h/p = hc/E = h/mc

However, this is a limiting situation – applicable to photons only. Real-life *matter*-particles should have *some *mass[1] and, therefore, their velocity will never be *c*.[2]

Hence, if p goes to zero, then the wavelength becomes infinitely long: if p → 0 then λ* → ∞*. How should we interpret this inverse proportionality between λ and p? To answer this question, let us first see what this wavelength λ actually represents.

If we look at the ψ = *a*·cos(p∙x/ħ – E∙t/ħ) – *i*·*a*·sin(p∙x/ħ – E∙t/ħ) once more, and if we write p∙x/ħ as Δ, then we can look at p∙x/ħ as a phase factor, and so we will be interested to know for what x this phase factor Δ = p∙x/ħ will be equal to 2π. So we write:

Δ =p∙x/ħ = 2π ⇔ x = 2π∙ħ/p = h/p = λ

So now we get a meaningful interpretation for that wavelength. It is the distance between the crests (or the troughs) of the wave, so to speak, as illustrated below. Of course, this two-dimensional wave has no real crests or troughs: we measure crests and troughs against the y-axis here. Hence, our definition depend on the frame of reference.

Now we know what λ actually represents for our one-dimensional elementary wavefunction. Now, the time that is needed for one cycle is equal to T = 1/*f *= 2π·(ħ/E). Hence, we can now calculate the wave velocity:

v = λ/T = (h/p)/[2π·(ħ/E)] = E/p

Unsurprisingly, we just get the phase velocity that we had calculated already: *v *= *v*_{p} = E/p. The question remains: what if p is zero? What if we are looking at some particle at rest? It is an intriguing question: we get an infinitely long wavelength, and an infinite wave velocity.

Now, re-writing the *v *= E/p as *v *= m∙*c*^{2}/m∙*v*_{g }* *= *c*/β_{g}, in which β_{g} is the relative *classical *velocity[3] of our particle β_{g} = *v*_{g}/*c*) tells us that the *phase *velocities will effectively be superluminal (β_{g} < 1 so 1/ β_{g} > 1), but what if β_{g} approaches zero? The conclusion seems unavoidable: for a particle at rest, we only have a frequency *in time*, as the wavefunction reduces to:

ψ = a·e^{−i·E·t/ħ} = a·cos(E∙t/ħ) – i·a·sin(E∙t/ħ)

How should we interpret this?

**A physical interpretation of relativistic length contraction?**

In my previous posts, we argued that the oscillations of the wavefunction pack energy. Because the energy of our particle is finite, the wave train cannot be infinitely long. If we assume some *definite* number of oscillations, then the string of oscillations will be shorter as λ decreases. Hence, the physical interpretation of the wavefunction that is offered here may explain relativistic length contraction.

🙂

Yep. Think about it. 🙂

[1] Even neutrinos have some (rest) mass. This was first confirmed by the US-Japan Super-Kamiokande collaboration in 1998. Neutrinos oscillate between three so-called flavors: electron neutrinos, muon neutrinos and *tau *neutrinos. Recent data suggests that the *sum *of their masses is less than a millionth of the rest mass of an electron. Hence, they propagate at speeds that are very near to the speed of light.

[2] Using the Lorentz factor (γ), we can write the relativistically correct formula for the kinetic energy as KE = E − E_{0} = m_{v}*c*^{2} − m_{0}*c*^{2} = m_{0}γ*c*^{2} − m_{0}*c*^{2} = m_{0}*c*^{2}(γ − 1). As *v *approaches *c*, γ approaches infinity and, therefore, the kinetic energy would become infinite as well.

[3] Because our particle will be represented by a wave *packet*, i.e. a superimposition of elementary waves with different E and p, the classical velocity of the particle becomes the *group *velocity of the wave, which is why we denote it by *v*_{g}.

I think I see where you’re going with this, but I seem to be missing something. Suppose we observe a moving object. That object appears longer to us but not to the objects in the same frame of reference, right? Consider objects A1 and A2 moving at a speed v relative to an observer B. If the same energy were applied to objects A1 and A2 such that they move in sync with respect to observer B, then there would appear to be no length contradiction between the two of them, correct? Yet wouldn’t both A1 and A2 appear to be longer to B? Yet both A1 and A2 have energy. How then can we interpret their energy as affecting their length with respect to observing each other? How does the physical interpretation of the wavefunction make a difference here?

Good question. Let me think through the consequences here. This was just one of my rapid fire posts. Need to do a better job with this. But thanks for reacting so quickly.

I am with chronologicaldot here – there is already a “physical” (do you mean intuitive common sense physical?) interpretation of relativistic length contraction which just flows naturally once you accept the basic principles of relativity and constant velocity of light. No need to bring energy or formulas or wave functions. (To be clear, I’m too stupid to follow the arguments above; just agreeing there’s IMHO no need to explain relativistic length contraction)

Working on it. The key idea is: I want to offer a possible MECHANISM for relativistic length contraction. 🙂