# Wavefunctions as gravitational waves

This is the paper I always wanted to write. It is there now, and I think it is good – and that‘s an understatement. š It is probably best to download it as a pdf-file from the viXra.org site because this was a rather fast ‘copy and paste’ job from the Word version of the paper, so there may be issues with boldface notation (vector notation), italics and, most importantly, with formulas – which I, sadly, have to ‘snip’ into this WordPress blog, as they don’t have an easy copy function for mathematical formulas.

It’s great stuff. If you have been following my blog – and many of you have – you will want to digest this. š

Abstract : This paper explores the implications of associating the components of the wavefunction with a physical dimension: force per unit mass ā which is, of course, the dimension of acceleration (m/s2) and gravitational fields. The classical electromagnetic field equations for energy densities, the Poynting vector and spin angular momentum are then re-derived by substituting the electromagnetic N/C unit of field strength (mass per unit charge) by the new N/kg = m/s2 dimension.

The results are elegant and insightful. For example, the energy densities are proportional to the square of the absolute value of the wavefunction and, hence, to the probabilities, which establishes a physical normalization condition. Also, SchrĆ¶dingerās wave equation may then, effectively, be interpreted as a diffusion equation for energy, and the wavefunction itself can be interpreted as a propagating gravitational wave. Finally, as an added bonus, concepts such as the Compton scattering radius for a particle, spin angular momentum, and the boson-fermion dichotomy, can also be explained more intuitively.

While the approach offers a physical interpretation of the wavefunction, the author argues that the core of the Copenhagen interpretations revolves around the complementarity principle, which remains unchallenged because the interpretation of amplitude waves as traveling fields does not explain the particle nature of matter.

# Introduction

This is not another introduction to quantum mechanics. We assume the reader is already familiar with the key principles and, importantly, with the basic math. We offer an interpretation of wave mechanics. As such, we do not challenge the complementarity principle: the physical interpretation of the wavefunction that is offered here explains the wave nature of matter only. It explains diffraction and interference of amplitudes but it does not explain why a particle will hit the detector not as a wave but as a particle. Hence, the Copenhagen interpretation of the wavefunction remains relevant: we just push its boundaries.

The basic ideas in this paper stem from a simple observation: the geometric similarity between the quantum-mechanical wavefunctions and electromagnetic waves is remarkably similar. The components of both waves are orthogonal to the direction of propagation and to each other. Only the relative phase differs : the electric and magnetic field vectors (E and B) have the same phase. In contrast, the phase of the real and imaginary part of the (elementary) wavefunction (Ļ = aĀ·eāiāĪø = aācosĪø – aāsinĪø) differ by 90 degrees (Ļ/2).[1] Pursuing the analogy, we explore the following question: if the oscillating electric and magnetic field vectors of an electromagnetic wave carry the energy that one associates with the wave, can we analyze the real and imaginary part of the wavefunction in a similar way?

We show the answer is positive and remarkably straightforward.  If the physical dimension of the electromagnetic field is expressed in newton per coulomb (force per unit charge), then the physical dimension of the components of the wavefunction may be associated with force per unit mass (newton per kg).[2] Of course, force over some distance is energy. The question then becomes: what is the energy concept here? Kinetic? Potential? Both?

The similarity between the energy of a (one-dimensional) linear oscillator (E = mĀ·a2Ā·Ļ2/2) and Einsteinās relativistic energy equation E = māc2 inspires us to interpret the energy as a two-dimensional oscillation of mass. To assist the reader, we construct a two-piston engine metaphor.[3] We then adapt the formula for the electromagnetic energy density to calculate the energy densities for the wave function. The results are elegant and intuitive: the energy densities are proportional to the square of the absolute value of the wavefunction and, hence, to the probabilities. SchrĆ¶dingerās wave equation may then, effectively, be interpreted as a diffusion equation for energy itself.

As an added bonus, concepts such as the Compton scattering radius for a particle and spin angular, as well as the boson-fermion dichotomy can be explained in a fully intuitive way.[4]

Of course, such interpretation is also an interpretation of the wavefunction itself, and the immediate reaction of the reader is predictable: the electric and magnetic field vectors are, somehow, to be looked at as real vectors. In contrast, the real and imaginary components of the wavefunction are not. However, this objection needs to be phrased more carefully. First, it may be noted that, in a classical analysis, the magnetic force is a pseudovector itself.[5] Second, a suitable choice of coordinates may make quantum-mechanical rotation matrices irrelevant.[6]

Therefore, the author is of the opinion that this little paper may provide some fresh perspective on the question, thereby further exploring Einsteinās basic sentiment in regard to quantum mechanics, which may be summarized as follows: there must be some physical explanation for the calculated probabilities.[7]

We will, therefore, start with Einsteinās relativistic energy equation (E = mc2) and wonder what it could possibly tell us.

# I. Energy as a two-dimensional oscillation of mass

The structural similarity between the relativistic energy formula, the formula for the total energy of an oscillator, and the kinetic energy of a moving body, is striking:

1. E = mc2
2. E = mĻ2/2
3. E = mv2/2

In these formulas, Ļ, v and c all describe some velocity.[8] Of course, there is the 1/2 factor in the E = mĻ2/2 formula[9], but that is exactly the point we are going to explore here: can we think of an oscillation in two dimensions, so it stores an amount of energy that is equal to E = 2Ā·mĀ·Ļ2/2 = mĀ·Ļ2?

That is easy enough. Think, for example, of a V-2 engine with the pistons at a 90-degree angle, as illustrated below. The 90Ā° angle makes it possible to perfectly balance the counterweight and the pistons, thereby ensuring smooth travel at all times. With permanently closed valves, the air inside the cylinder compresses and decompresses as the pistons move up and down and provides, therefore, a restoring force. As such, it will store potential energy, just like a spring, and the motion of the pistons will also reflect that of a mass on a spring. Hence, we can describe it by a sinusoidal function, with the zero point at the center of each cylinder. We can, therefore, think of the moving pistons as harmonic oscillators, just like mechanical springs.

Figure 1: Oscillations in two dimensions

If we assume there is no friction, we have a perpetuum mobile here. The compressed air and the rotating counterweight (which, combined with the crankshaft, acts as a flywheel[10]) store the potential energy. The moving masses of the pistons store the kinetic energy of the system.[11]

At this point, it is probably good to quickly review the relevant math. If the magnitude of the oscillation is equal to a, then the motion of the piston (or the mass on a spring) will be described by x = aĀ·cos(ĻĀ·t + Ī).[12] Needless to say, Ī is just a phase factor which defines our t = 0 point, and Ļ is the natural angular frequency of our oscillator. Because of the 90Ā° angle between the two cylinders, Ī would be 0 for one oscillator, and āĻ/2 for the other. Hence, the motion of one piston is given by x = aĀ·cos(ĻĀ·t), while the motion of the other is given by x = aĀ·cos(ĻĀ·tāĻ/2) = aĀ·sin(ĻĀ·t).

The kinetic and potential energy of one oscillator (think of one piston or one spring only) can then be calculated as:

1. K.E. = T = mĀ·v2/2 = (1/2)Ā·mĀ·Ļ2Ā·a2Ā·sin2(ĻĀ·t + Ī)
2. P.E. = U = kĀ·x2/2 = (1/2)Ā·kĀ·a2Ā·cos2(ĻĀ·t + Ī)

The coefficient k in the potential energy formula characterizes the restoring force: F = ākĀ·x. From the dynamics involved, it is obvious that k must be equal to mĀ·Ļ2. Hence, the total energy is equal to:

E = T + U = (1/2)Ā· mĀ·Ļ2Ā·a2Ā·[sin2(ĻĀ·t + Ī) + cos2(ĻĀ·t + Ī)] = mĀ·a2Ā·Ļ2/2

To facilitate the calculations, we will briefly assume k = mĀ·Ļ2 and a are equal to 1. The motion of our first oscillator is given by the cos(ĻĀ·t) = cosĪø function (Īø = ĻĀ·t), and its kinetic energy will be equal to sin2Īø. Hence, the (instantaneous) change in kinetic energy at any point in time will be equal to:

d(sin2Īø)/dĪø = 2āsinĪøād(sinĪø)/dĪø = 2āsinĪøācosĪø

Let us look at the second oscillator now. Just think of the second piston going up and down in the V-2 engine. Its motion is given by the sinĪø function, which is equal to cos(ĪøāĻ /2). Hence, its kinetic energy is equal to sin2(ĪøāĻ /2), and how it changes ā as a function of Īø ā will be equal to:

2āsin(ĪøāĻ /2)ācos(ĪøāĻ /2) = = ā2ācosĪøāsinĪø = ā2āsinĪøācosĪø

We have our perpetuum mobile! While transferring kinetic energy from one piston to the other, the crankshaft will rotate with a constant angular velocity: linear motion becomes circular motion, and vice versa, and the total energy that is stored in the system is T + U = ma2Ļ2.

We have a great metaphor here. Somehow, in this beautiful interplay between linear and circular motion, energy is borrowed from one place and then returns to the other, cycle after cycle. We know the wavefunction consist of a sine and a cosine: the cosine is the real component, and the sine is the imaginary component. Could they be equally real? Could each represent half of the total energy of our particle? Should we think of the c in our E = mc2 formula as an angular velocity?

These are sensible questions. Let us explore them.

# II. The wavefunction as a two-dimensional oscillation

The elementary wavefunction is written as:

Ļ = aĀ·eāi[EĀ·t ā pāx]/Ä§aĀ·eāi[EĀ·t ā pāx]/Ä§ = aĀ·cos(pāx/Ä§ Eāt/Ä§) + iĀ·aĀ·sin(pāx/Ä§ Eāt/Ä§)

When considering a particle at rest (p = 0) this reduces to:

Ļ = aĀ·eāiāEĀ·t/Ä§ = aĀ·cos(Eāt/Ä§) + iĀ·aĀ·sin(Eāt/Ä§) = aĀ·cos(Eāt/Ä§) iĀ·aĀ·sin(Eāt/Ä§)

Let us remind ourselves of the geometry involved, which is illustrated below. Note that the argument of the wavefunction rotates clockwise with time, while the mathematical convention for measuring the phase angle (Ļ) is counter-clockwise.

Figure 2: Eulerās formula

If we assume the momentum p is all in the x-direction, then the p and x vectors will have the same direction, and pāx/Ä§ reduces to pāx/Ä§. Most illustrations ā such as the one below ā will either freeze x or, else, t. Alternatively, one can google web animations varying both. The point is: we also have a two-dimensional oscillation here. These two dimensions are perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the wavefunction. For example, if the wavefunction propagates in the x-direction, then the oscillations are along the y– and z-axis, which we may refer to as the real and imaginary axis. Note how the phase difference between the cosine and the sine  ā the real and imaginary part of our wavefunction ā appear to give some spin to the whole. I will come back to this.

Figure 3: Geometric representation of the wavefunction

Hence, if we would say these oscillations carry half of the total energy of the particle, then we may refer to the real and imaginary energy of the particle respectively, and the interplay between the real and the imaginary part of the wavefunction may then describe how energy propagates through space over time.

Let us consider, once again, a particle at rest. Hence, p = 0 and the (elementary) wavefunction reduces to Ļ = aĀ·eāiāEĀ·t/Ä§. Hence, the angular velocity of both oscillations, at some point x, is given by Ļ = -E/Ä§. Now, the energy of our particle includes all of the energy ā kinetic, potential and rest energy ā and is, therefore, equal to E = mc2.

Can we, somehow, relate this to the mĀ·a2Ā·Ļ2 energy formula for our V-2 perpetuum mobile? Our wavefunction has an amplitude too. Now, if the oscillations of the real and imaginary wavefunction store the energy of our particle, then their amplitude will surely matter. In fact, the energy of an oscillation is, in general, proportional to the square of the amplitude: E Āµ a2. We may, therefore, think that the a2 factor in the E = mĀ·a2Ā·Ļ2 energy will surely be relevant as well.

However, here is a complication: an actual particle is localized in space and can, therefore, not be represented by the elementary wavefunction. We must build a wave packet for that: a sum of wavefunctions, each with their own amplitude ak, and their own Ļi = -Ei/Ä§. Each of these wavefunctions will contribute some energy to the total energy of the wave packet. To calculate the contribution of each wave to the total, both ai as well as Ei will matter.

What is Ei? Ei varies around some average E, which we can associate with some average mass m: m = E/c2. The Uncertainty Principle kicks in here. The analysis becomes more complicated, but a formula such as the one below might make sense:We can re-write this as:What is the meaning of this equation? We may look at it as some sort of physical normalization condition when building up the Fourier sum. Of course, we should relate this to the mathematical normalization condition for the wavefunction. Our intuition tells us that the probabilities must be related to the energy densities, but how exactly? We will come back to this question in a moment. Let us first think some more about the enigma: what is mass?

Before we do so, let us quickly calculate the value of c2Ä§2: it is about 1Ā“1051 N2ām4. Let us also do a dimensional analysis: the physical dimensions of the E = mĀ·a2Ā·Ļ2 equation make sense if we express m in kg, a in m, and Ļ in rad/s. We then get: [E] = kgām2/s2 = (Nās2/m)ām2/s2 = Nām = J. The dimensions of the left- and right-hand side of the physical normalization condition is N3ām5.

# III. What is mass?

We came up, playfully, with a meaningful interpretation for energy: it is a two-dimensional oscillation of mass. But what is mass? A new aether theory is, of course, not an option, but then what is it that is oscillating? To understand the physics behind equations, it is always good to do an analysis of the physical dimensions in the equation. Let us start with Einsteinās energy equation once again. If we want to look at mass, we should re-write it as m = E/c2:

[m] = [E/c2] = J/(m/s)2 = NĀ·mās2/m2 = NĀ·s2/m = kg

This is not very helpful. It only reminds us of Newtonās definition of a mass: mass is that what gets accelerated by a force. At this point, we may want to think of the physical significance of the absolute nature of the speed of light. Einsteinās E = mc2 equation implies we can write the ratio between the energy and the mass of any particle is always the same, so we can write, for example:This reminds us of the Ļ2= C1/L or Ļ2 = k/m of harmonic oscillators once again.[13] The key difference is that the Ļ2= C1/L and Ļ2 = k/m formulas introduce two or more degrees of freedom.[14] In contrast, c2= E/m for any particle, always. However, that is exactly the point: we can modulate the resistance, inductance and capacitance of electric circuits, and the stiffness of springs and the masses we put on them, but we live in one physical space only: our spacetime. Hence, the speed of light c emerges here as the defining property of spacetime ā the resonant frequency, so to speak. We have no further degrees of freedom here.

The Planck-Einstein relation (for photons) and the de Broglie equation (for matter-particles) have an interesting feature: both imply that the energy of the oscillation is proportional to the frequency, with Planckās constant as the constant of proportionality. Now, for one-dimensional oscillations ā think of a guitar string, for example ā we know the energy will be proportional to the square of the frequency. It is a remarkable observation: the two-dimensional matter-wave, or the electromagnetic wave, gives us two waves for the price of one, so to speak, each carrying half of the total energy of the oscillation but, as a result, we get a proportionality between E and f instead of between E and f2.

However, such reflections do not answer the fundamental question we started out with: what is mass? At this point, it is hard to go beyond the circular definition that is implied by Einsteinās formula: energy is a two-dimensional oscillation of mass, and mass packs energy, and c emerges us as the property of spacetime that defines how exactly.

When everything is said and done, this does not go beyond stating that mass is some scalar field. Now, a scalar field is, quite simply, some real number that we associate with a position in spacetime. The Higgs field is a scalar field but, of course, the theory behind it goes much beyond stating that we should think of mass as some scalar field. The fundamental question is: why and how does energy, or matter, condense into elementary particles? That is what the Higgs mechanism is about but, as this paper is exploratory only, we cannot even start explaining the basics of it.

What we can do, however, is look at the wave equation again (SchrĆ¶dingerās equation), as we can now analyze it as an energy diffusion equation.

# IV. SchrĆ¶dingerās equation as an energy diffusion equation

The interpretation of SchrĆ¶dingerās equation as a diffusion equation is straightforward. Feynman (Lectures, III-16-1) briefly summarizes it as follows:

āWe can think of SchrĆ¶dingerās equation as describing the diffusion of the probability amplitude from one point to the next. [ā¦] But the imaginary coefficient in front of the derivative makes the behavior completely different from the ordinary diffusion such as you would have for a gas spreading out along a thin tube. Ordinary diffusion gives rise to real exponential solutions, whereas the solutions of SchrĆ¶dingerās equation are complex waves.ā[17]

Let us review the basic math. For a particle moving in free space ā with no external force fields acting on it ā there is no potential (U = 0) and, therefore, the UĻ term disappears. Therefore, SchrĆ¶dingerās equation reduces to:

āĻ(x, t)/āt = iĀ·(1/2)Ā·(Ä§/meff)Ā·ā2Ļ(x, t)

The ubiquitous diffusion equation in physics is:

āĻ(x, t)/āt = DĀ·ā2Ļ(x, t)

The structural similarity is obvious. The key difference between both equations is that the wave equation gives us two equations for the price of one. Indeed, because Ļ is a complex-valued function, with a real and an imaginary part, we get the following equations[18]:

1. Re(āĻ/āt) = ā(1/2)Ā·(Ä§/meff)Ā·Im(ā2Ļ)
2. Im(āĻ/āt) = (1/2)Ā·(Ä§/meff)Ā·Re(ā2Ļ)

These equations make us think of the equations for an electromagnetic wave in free space (no stationary charges or currents):

1. āB/āt = āāĆE
2. āE/āt = c2āĆB

The above equations effectively describe a propagation mechanism in spacetime, as illustrated below.

Figure 4: Propagation mechanisms

The Laplacian operator (ā2), when operating on a scalar quantity, gives us a flux density, i.e. something expressed per square meter (1/m2). In this case, it is operating on Ļ(x, t), so what is the dimension of our wavefunction Ļ(x, t)? To answer that question, we should analyze the diffusion constant in SchrĆ¶dingerās equation, i.e. the (1/2)Ā·(Ä§/meff) factor:

1. As a mathematical constant of proportionality, it will quantify the relationship between both derivatives (i.e. the time derivative and the Laplacian);
2. As a physical constant, it will ensure the physical dimensions on both sides of the equation are compatible.

Now, the Ä§/meff factor is expressed in (NĀ·mĀ·s)/(NĀ· s2/m) = m2/s. Hence, it does ensure the dimensions on both sides of the equation are, effectively, the same: āĻ/āt is a time derivative and, therefore, its dimension is s1 while, as mentioned above, the dimension of ā2Ļ is m2. However, this does not solve our basic question: what is the dimension of the real and imaginary part of our wavefunction?

At this point, mainstream physicists will say: it does not have a physical dimension, and there is no geometric interpretation of SchrĆ¶dingerās equation. One may argue, effectively, that its argument, (pāx – Eāt)/Ä§, is just a number and, therefore, that the real and imaginary part of Ļ is also just some number.

To this, we may object that Ä§ may be looked as a mathematical scaling constant only. If we do that, then the argument of Ļ will, effectively, be expressed in action units, i.e. in NĀ·mĀ·s. It then does make sense to also associate a physical dimension with the real and imaginary part of Ļ. What could it be?

We may have a closer look at Maxwellās equations for inspiration here. The electric field vector is expressed in newton (the unit of force) per unit of charge (coulomb). Now, there is something interesting here. The physical dimension of the magnetic field is N/C divided by m/s.[19] We may write B as the following vector cross-product: B = (1/c)āexĆE, with ex the unit vector pointing in the x-direction (i.e. the direction of propagation of the wave). Hence, we may associate the (1/c)āexĆ operator, which amounts to a rotation by 90 degrees, with the s/m dimension. Now, multiplication by i also amounts to a rotation by 90Ā° degrees. Hence, we may boldly write: B = (1/c)āexĆE = (1/c)āiāE. This allows us to also geometrically interpret SchrĆ¶dingerās equation in the way we interpreted it above (see Figure 3).[20]

Still, we have not answered the question as to what the physical dimension of the real and imaginary part of our wavefunction should be. At this point, we may be inspired by the structural similarity between Newtonās and Coulombās force laws:Hence, if the electric field vector E is expressed in force per unit charge (N/C), then we may want to think of associating the real part of our wavefunction with a force per unit mass (N/kg). We can, of course, do a substitution here, because the mass unit (1 kg) is equivalent to 1 NĀ·s2/m. Hence, our N/kg dimension becomes:

N/kg = N/(NĀ·s2/m)= m/s2

What is this: m/s2? Is that the dimension of the aĀ·cosĪø term in the aĀ·eāiĪø aĀ·cosĪø ā iĀ·aĀ·sinĪø wavefunction?

My answer is: why not? Think of it: m/s2 is the physical dimension of acceleration: the increase or decrease in velocity (m/s) per second. It ensures the wavefunction for any particle ā matter-particles or particles with zero rest mass (photons) ā and the associated wave equation (which has to be the same for all, as the spacetime we live in is one) are mutually consistent.

In this regard, we should think of how we would model a gravitational wave. The physical dimension would surely be the same: force per mass unit. It all makes sense: wavefunctions may, perhaps, be interpreted as traveling distortions of spacetime, i.e. as tiny gravitational waves.

# V. Energy densities and flows

Pursuing the geometric equivalence between the equations for an electromagnetic wave and SchrĆ¶dingerās equation, we can now, perhaps, see if there is an equivalent for the energy density. For an electromagnetic wave, we know that the energy density is given by the following formula:E and B are the electric and magnetic field vector respectively. The Poynting vector will give us the directional energy flux, i.e. the energy flow per unit area per unit time. We write:Needless to say, the āā operator is the divergence and, therefore, gives us the magnitude of a (vector) fieldās source or sink at a given point. To be precise, the divergence gives us the volume density of the outward flux of a vector field from an infinitesimal volume around a given point. In this case, it gives us the volume density of the flux of S.

We can analyze the dimensions of the equation for the energy density as follows:

1. E is measured in newton per coulomb, so [EāE] = [E2] = N2/C2.
2. B is measured in (N/C)/(m/s), so we get [BāB] = [B2] = (N2/C2)Ā·(s2/m2). However, the dimension of our c2 factor is (m2/s2) and so weāre also left with N2/C2.
3. The Ļµ0 is the electric constant, aka as the vacuum permittivity. As a physical constant, it should ensure the dimensions on both sides of the equation work out, and they do: [Īµ0] = C2/(NĀ·m2) and, therefore, if we multiply that with N2/C2, we find that is expressed in J/m3.[21]

Replacing the newton per coulomb unit (N/C) by the newton per kg unit (N/kg) in the formulas above should give us the equivalent of the energy density for the wavefunction. We just need to substitute Ļµ0 for an equivalent constant. We may to give it a try. If the energy densities can be calculated ā which are also mass densities, obviously ā then the probabilities should be proportional to them.

Let us first see what we get for a photon, assuming the electromagnetic wave represents its wavefunction. Substituting B for (1/c)āiāE or for ā(1/c)āiāE gives us the following result:Zero!? An unexpected result! Or not? We have no stationary charges and no currents: only an electromagnetic wave in free space. Hence, the local energy conservation principle needs to be respected at all points in space and in time. The geometry makes sense of the result: for an electromagnetic wave, the magnitudes of E and B reach their maximum, minimum and zero point simultaneously, as shown below.[22] This is because their phase is the same.

Figure 5: Electromagnetic wave: E and B

Should we expect a similar result for the energy densities that we would associate with the real and imaginary part of the matter-wave? For the matter-wave, we have a phase difference between aĀ·cosĪø and aĀ·sinĪø, which gives a different picture of the propagation of the wave (see Figure 3).[23] In fact, the geometry of the suggestion suggests some inherent spin, which is interesting. I will come back to this. Let us first guess those densities. Making abstraction of any scaling constants, we may write:We get what we hoped to get: the absolute square of our amplitude is, effectively, an energy density !

|Ļ|2  = |aĀ·eāiāEĀ·t/Ä§|2 = a2 = u

This is very deep. A photon has no rest mass, so it borrows and returns energy from empty space as it travels through it. In contrast, a matter-wave carries energy and, therefore, has some (rest) mass. It is therefore associated with an energy density, and this energy density gives us the probabilities. Of course, we need to fine-tune the analysis to account for the fact that we have a wave packet rather than a single wave, but that should be feasible.

As mentioned, the phase difference between the real and imaginary part of our wavefunction (a cosine and a sine function) appear to give some spin to our particle. We do not have this particularity for a photon. Of course, photons are bosons, i.e. spin-zero particles, while elementary matter-particles are fermions with spin-1/2. Hence, our geometric interpretation of the wavefunction suggests that, after all, there may be some more intuitive explanation of the fundamental dichotomy between bosons and fermions, which puzzled even Feynman:

āWhy is it that particles with half-integral spin are Fermi particles, whereas particles with integral spin are Bose particles? We apologize for the fact that we cannot give you an elementary explanation. An explanation has been worked out by Pauli from complicated arguments of quantum field theory and relativity. He has shown that the two must necessarily go together, but we have not been able to find a way of reproducing his arguments on an elementary level. It appears to be one of the few places in physics where there is a rule which can be stated very simply, but for which no one has found a simple and easy explanation. The explanation is deep down in relativistic quantum mechanics. This probably means that we do not have a complete understanding of the fundamental principle involved.ā (Feynman, Lectures, III-4-1)

The physical interpretation of the wavefunction, as presented here, may provide some better understanding of āthe fundamental principle involvedā: the physical dimension of the oscillation is just very different. That is all: it is force per unit charge for photons, and force per unit mass for matter-particles. We will examine the question of spin somewhat more carefully in section VII. Let us first examine the matter-wave some more.

# VI. Group and phase velocity of the matter-wave

The geometric representation of the matter-wave (see Figure 3) suggests a traveling wave and, yes, of course: the matter-wave effectively travels through space and time. But what is traveling, exactly? It is the pulse ā or the signal ā only: the phase velocity of the wave is just a mathematical concept and, even in our physical interpretation of the wavefunction, the same is true for the group velocity of our wave packet. The oscillation is two-dimensional, but perpendicular to the direction of travel of the wave. Hence, nothing actually moves with our particle.

Here, we should also reiterate that we did not answer the question as to what is oscillating up and down and/or sideways: we only associated a physical dimension with the components of the wavefunction ā newton per kg (force per unit mass), to be precise. We were inspired to do so because of the physical dimension of the electric and magnetic field vectors (newton per coulomb, i.e. force per unit charge) we associate with electromagnetic waves which, for all practical purposes, we currently treat as the wavefunction for a photon. This made it possible to calculate the associated energy densities and a Poynting vector for energy dissipation. In addition, we showed that SchrĆ¶dinger’s equation itself then becomes a diffusion equation for energy. However, let us now focus some more on the asymmetry which is introduced by the phase difference between the real and the imaginary part of the wavefunction. Look at the mathematical shape of the elementary wavefunction once again:

Ļ = aĀ·eāi[EĀ·t ā pāx]/Ä§aĀ·eāi[EĀ·t ā pāx]/Ä§ = aĀ·cos(pāx/Ä§ ā Eāt/Ä§) + iĀ·aĀ·sin(pāx/Ä§ ā Eāt/Ä§)

The minus sign in the argument of our sine and cosine function defines the direction of travel: an F(xāvāt) wavefunction will always describe some wave that is traveling in the positive x-direction (with the wave velocity), while an F(x+vāt) wavefunction will travel in the negative x-direction. For a geometric interpretation of the wavefunction in three dimensions, we need to agree on how to define i or, what amounts to the same, a convention on how to define clockwise and counterclockwise directions: if we look at a clock from the back, then its hand will be moving counterclockwise. So we need to establish the equivalent of the right-hand rule. However, let us not worry about that now. Let us focus on the interpretation. To ease the analysis, we’ll assume we’re looking at a particle at rest. Hence, p = 0, and the wavefunction reduces to:

Ļ = aĀ·eāiāEĀ·t/Ä§ = aĀ·cos(āEāt/Ä§) + iĀ·aĀ·sin(āE0āt/Ä§) = aĀ·cos(E0āt/Ä§) ā iĀ·aĀ·sin(E0āt/Ä§)

E0 is, of course, the rest mass of our particle and, now that we are here, we should probably wonder whose time we are talking about: is it our time, or is the proper time of our particle? Well… In this situation, we are both at rest so it does not matter: t is, effectively, the proper time so perhaps we should write it as t0. It does not matter. You can see what we expect to see: E0/Ä§ pops up as the natural frequency of our matter-particle: (E0/Ä§)āt = Ļāt. Remembering the Ļ = 2ĻĀ·f = 2Ļ/T and T = 1/formulas, we can associate a period and a frequency with this wave, using the Ļ = 2ĻĀ·f = 2Ļ/T. Noting that Ä§ = h/2Ļ, we find the following:

T = 2ĻĀ·(Ä§/E0) = h/E0 ā = E0/h = m0c2/h

This is interesting, because we can look at the period as a natural unit of time for our particle. What about the wavelength? That is tricky because we need to distinguish between group and phase velocity here. The group velocity (vg) should be zero here, because we assume our particle does not move. In contrast, the phase velocity is given by vp = Ī»Ā·= (2Ļ/k)Ā·(Ļ/2Ļ) = Ļ/k. In fact, we’ve got something funny here: the wavenumber k = p/Ä§ is zero, because we assume the particle is at rest, so p = 0. So we have a division by zero here, which is rather strange. What do we get assuming the particle is not at rest? We write:

vp = Ļ/k = (E/Ä§)/(p/Ä§) = E/p = E/(mĀ·vg) = (mĀ·c2)/(mĀ·vg) = c2/vg

This is interesting: it establishes a reciprocal relation between the phase and the group velocity, with as a simple scaling constant. Indeed, the graph below shows the shape of the function does not change with the value of c, and we may also re-write the relation above as:

vp/= Ī²p = c/vp = 1/Ī²g = 1/(c/vp)

Figure 6: Reciprocal relation between phase and group velocity

We can also write the mentioned relationship as vpĀ·vg = c2, which reminds us of the relationship between the electric and magnetic constant (1/Īµ0)Ā·(1/Ī¼0) = c2. This is interesting in light of the fact we can re-write this as (cĀ·Īµ0)Ā·(cĀ·Ī¼0) = 1, which shows electricity and magnetism are just two sides of the same coin, so to speak.[24]

Interesting, but how do we interpret the math? What about the implications of the zero value for wavenumber k = p/Ä§. We would probably like to think it implies the elementary wavefunction should always be associated with some momentum, because the concept of zero momentum clearly leads to weird math: something times zero cannot be equal to c2! Such interpretation is also consistent with the Uncertainty Principle: if ĪxĀ·Īp ā„ Ä§, then neither Īx nor Īp can be zero. In other words, the Uncertainty Principle tells us that the idea of a pointlike particle actually being at some specific point in time and in space does not make sense: it has to move. It tells us that our concept of dimensionless points in time and space are mathematical notions only. Actual particles – including photons – are always a bit spread out, so to speak, and – importantly – they have to move.

For a photon, this is self-evident. It has no rest mass, no rest energy, and, therefore, it is going to move at the speed of light itself. We write: p = mĀ·c = mĀ·c2/= E/c. Using the relationship above, we get:

vp = Ļ/k = (E/Ä§)/(p/Ä§) = E/p = c ā vg = c2/vp = c2/c = c

This is good: we started out with some reflections on the matter-wave, but here we get an interpretation of the electromagnetic wave as a wavefunction for the photon. But let us get back to our matter-wave. In regard to our interpretation of a particle having to move, we should remind ourselves, once again, of the fact that an actual particle is always localized in space and that it can, therefore, not be represented by the elementary wavefunction Ļ = aĀ·eāi[EĀ·t ā pāx]/Ä§ or, for a particle at rest, the Ļ = aĀ·eāiāEĀ·t/Ä§ function. We must build a wave packet for that: a sum of wavefunctions, each with their own amplitude ai, and their own Ļi = āEi/Ä§. Indeed, in section II, we showed that each of these wavefunctions will contribute some energy to the total energy of the wave packet and that, to calculate the contribution of each wave to the total, both ai as well as Ei matter. This may or may not resolve the apparent paradox. Let us look at the group velocity.

To calculate a meaningful group velocity, we must assume the vg = āĻi/āki = ā(Ei/Ä§)/ā(pi/Ä§) = ā(Ei)/ā(pi) exists. So we must have some dispersion relation. How do we calculate it? We need to calculate Ļi as a function of ki here, or Ei as a function of pi. How do we do that? Well… There are a few ways to go about it but one interesting way of doing it is to re-write SchrĆ¶dinger’s equation as we did, i.e. by distinguishing the real and imaginary parts of the āĻ/āt =iĀ·[Ä§/(2m)]Ā·ā2Ļ wave equation and, hence, re-write it as the following pair of two equations:

1. Re(āĻ/āt) = ā[Ä§/(2meff)]Ā·Im(ā2Ļ) ā ĻĀ·cos(kx ā Ļt) = k2Ā·[Ä§/(2meff)]Ā·cos(kx ā Ļt)
2. Im(āĻ/āt) = [Ä§/(2meff)]Ā·Re(ā2Ļ) ā ĻĀ·sin(kx ā Ļt) = k2Ā·[Ä§/(2meff)]Ā·sin(kx ā Ļt)

Both equations imply the following dispersion relation:

Ļ = Ä§Ā·k2/(2meff)

Of course, we need to think about the subscripts now: we have Ļi, ki, but… What about meff or, dropping the subscript, m? Do we write it as mi? If so, what is it? Well… It is the equivalent mass of Ei obviously, and so we get it from the mass-energy equivalence relation: mi = Ei/c2. It is a fine point, but one most people forget about: they usually just write m. However, if there is uncertainty in the energy, then Einstein’s mass-energy relation tells us we must have some uncertainty in the (equivalent) mass too. Here, I should refer back to Section II: Ei varies around some average energy E and, therefore, the Uncertainty Principle kicks in.

# VII. Explaining spin

The elementary wavefunction vector ā i.e. the vector sum of the real and imaginary component ā rotates around the x-axis, which gives us the direction of propagation of the wave (see Figure 3). Its magnitude remains constant. In contrast, the magnitude of the electromagnetic vector ā defined as the vector sum of the electric and magnetic field vectors ā oscillates between zero and some maximum (see Figure 5).

We already mentioned that the rotation of the wavefunction vector appears to give some spin to the particle. Of course, a circularly polarized wave would also appear to have spin (think of the E and B vectors rotating around the direction of propagation – as opposed to oscillating up and down or sideways only). In fact, a circularly polarized light does carry angular momentum, as the equivalent mass of its energy may be thought of as rotating as well. But so here we are looking at a matter-wave.

The basic idea is the following: if we look at Ļ = aĀ·eāiāEĀ·t/Ä§ as some real vector ā as a two-dimensional oscillation of mass, to be precise ā then we may associate its rotation around the direction of propagation with some torque. The illustration below reminds of the math here.

Figure 7: Torque and angular momentum vectors

A torque on some mass about a fixed axis gives it angular momentum, which we can write as the vector cross-product L = rĆp or, perhaps easier for our purposes here as the product of an angular velocity (Ļ) and rotational inertia (I), aka as the moment of inertia or the angular mass. We write:

L = IĀ·Ļ

Note we can write L and Ļ in boldface here because they are (axial) vectors. If we consider their magnitudes only, we write L = IĀ·Ļ (no boldface). We can now do some calculations. Let us start with the angular velocity. In our previous posts, we showed that the period of the matter-wave is equal to T = 2ĻĀ·(Ä§/E0). Hence, the angular velocity must be equal to:

Ļ = 2Ļ/[2ĻĀ·(Ä§/E0)] = E0/Ä§

We also know the distance r, so that is the magnitude of r in the LrĆp vector cross-product: it is just a, so that is the magnitude of Ļ = aĀ·eāiāEĀ·t/Ä§. Now, the momentum (p) is the product of a linear velocity (v) – in this case, the tangential velocity – and some mass (m): p = mĀ·v. If we switch to scalar instead of vector quantities, then the (tangential) velocity is given by v = rĀ·Ļ. So now we only need to think about what we should use for m or, if we want to work with the angular velocity (Ļ), the angular mass (I). Here we need to make some assumption about the mass (or energy) distribution. Now, it may or may not sense to assume the energy in the oscillation ā and, therefore, the mass ā is distributed uniformly. In that case, we may use the formula for the angular mass of a solid cylinder: I = mĀ·r2/2. If we keep the analysis non-relativistic, then m = m0. Of course, the energy-mass equivalence tells us that m0 = E0/c2. Hence, this is what we get:

L = IĀ·Ļ = (m0Ā·r2/2)Ā·(E0/Ä§) = (1/2)Ā·a2Ā·(E0/c2)Ā·(E0/Ä§) = a2Ā·E02/(2Ā·Ä§Ā·c2)

Does it make sense? Maybe. Maybe not. Let us do a dimensional analysis: that wonāt check our logic, but it makes sure we made no mistakes when mapping mathematical and physical spaces. We have m2Ā·J2 = m2Ā·N2Ā·m2 in the numerator and NĀ·mĀ·sĀ·m2/s2 in the denominator. Hence, the dimensions work out: we get NĀ·mĀ·s as the dimension for L, which is, effectively, the physical dimension of angular momentum. It is also the action dimension, of course, and that cannot be a coincidence. Also note that the E = mc2 equation allows us to re-write it as:

L = a2Ā·E02/(2Ā·Ä§Ā·c2)

Of course, in quantum mechanics, we associate spin with the magnetic moment of a charged particle, not with its mass as such. Is there way to link the formula above to the one we have for the quantum-mechanical angular momentum, which is also measured in NĀ·mĀ·s units, and which can only take on one of two possible values: J = +Ä§/2 and āÄ§/2? It looks like a long shot, right? How do we go from (1/2)Ā·a2Ā·m02/Ä§ to Ā± (1/2)āÄ§? Let us do a numerical example. The energy of an electron is typically 0.510 MeV Ā» 8.1871Ć10ā14 Nām, and aā¦ What value should we take for a?

We have an obvious trio of candidates here: the Bohr radius, the classical electron radius (aka the Thompon scattering length), and the Compton scattering radius.

Let us start with the Bohr radius, so that is about 0.Ć10ā10 Nām. We get L = a2Ā·E02/(2Ā·Ä§Ā·c2) = 9.9Ć10ā31 Nāmās. Now that is about 1.88Ć104 times Ä§/2. That is a huge factor. The Bohr radius cannot be right: we are not looking at an electron in an orbital here. To show it does not make sense, we may want to double-check the analysis by doing the calculation in another way. We said each oscillation will always pack 6.626070040(81)Ć10ā34 joule in energy. So our electron should pack about 1.24Ć10ā20 oscillations. The angular momentum (L) we get when using the Bohr radius for a and the value of 6.626Ć10ā34 joule for E0 and the Bohr radius is equal to 6.49Ć10ā59 Nāmās. So that is the angular momentum per oscillation. When we multiply this with the number of oscillations (1.24Ć10ā20), we get about 8.01Ć10ā51 Nāmās, so that is a totally different number.

The classical electron radius is about 2.818Ć10ā15 m. We get an L that is equal to about 2.81Ć10ā39 Nāmās, so now it is a tiny fraction of Ä§/2! Hence, this leads us nowhere. Let us go for our last chance to get a meaningful result! Let us use the Compton scattering length, so that is about 2.42631Ć10ā12 m.

This gives us an L of 2.08Ć10ā33 Nāmās, which is only 20 times Ä§. This is not so bad, but it is good enough? Let us calculate it the other way around: what value should we take for a so as to ensure L = a2Ā·E02/(2Ā·Ä§Ā·c2) = Ä§/2? Let us write it out:

In fact, this is the formula for the so-called reduced Compton wavelength. This is perfect. We found what we wanted to find. Substituting this value for a (you can calculate it: it is about 3.8616Ć10ā33 m), we get what we should find:

This is a rather spectacular result, and one that would ā a priori ā support the interpretation of the wavefunction that is being suggested in this paper.

# VIII. The boson-fermion dichotomy

Let us do some more thinking on the boson-fermion dichotomy. Again, we should remind ourselves that an actual particle is localized in space and that it can, therefore, not be represented by the elementary wavefunction Ļ = aĀ·eāi[EĀ·t ā pāx]/Ä§ or, for a particle at rest, the Ļ = aĀ·eāiāEĀ·t/Ä§ function. We must build a wave packet for that: a sum of wavefunctions, each with their own amplitude ai, and their own Ļi = āEi/Ä§. Each of these wavefunctions will contribute some energy to the total energy of the wave packet. Now, we can have another wild but logical theory about this.

Think of the apparent right-handedness of the elementary wavefunction: surely, Nature can’t be bothered about our convention of measuring phase angles clockwise or counterclockwise. Also, the angular momentum can be positive or negative: J = +Ä§/2 or āÄ§/2. Hence, we would probably like to think that an actual particle – think of an electron, or whatever other particle you’d think of – may consist of right-handed as well as left-handed elementary waves. To be precise, we may think they either consist of (elementary) right-handed waves or, else, of (elementary) left-handed waves. An elementary right-handed wave would be written as:

Ļ(Īøi= aiĀ·(cosĪøi + iĀ·sinĪøi)

In contrast, an elementary left-handed wave would be written as:

Ļ(Īøi= aiĀ·(cosĪøi ā iĀ·sinĪøi)

How does that work out with the E0Ā·t argument of our wavefunction? Position is position, and direction is direction, but time? Time has only one direction, but Nature surely does not care how we count time: counting like 1, 2, 3, etcetera or like ā1, ā2, ā3, etcetera is just the same. If we count like 1, 2, 3, etcetera, then we write our wavefunction like:

Ļ = aĀ·cos(E0āt/Ä§) ā iĀ·aĀ·sin(E0āt/Ä§)

If we count time like ā1, ā2, ā3, etcetera then we write it as:

Ļ = aĀ·cos(āE0āt/Ä§) ā iĀ·aĀ·sin(āE0āt/Ä§)= aĀ·cos(E0āt/Ä§) + iĀ·aĀ·sin(E0āt/Ä§)

Hence, it is just like the left- or right-handed circular polarization of an electromagnetic wave: we can have both for the matter-wave too! This, then, should explain why we can have either positive or negative quantum-mechanical spin (+Ä§/2 or āÄ§/2). It is the usual thing: we have two mathematical possibilities here, and so we must have two physical situations that correspond to it.

It is only natural. If we have left- and right-handed photons – or, generalizing, left- and right-handed bosons – then we should also have left- and right-handed fermions (electrons, protons, etcetera). Back to the dichotomy. The textbook analysis of the dichotomy between bosons and fermions may be epitomized by Richard Feynmanās Lecture on it (Feynman, III-4), which is confusing and ā I would dare to say ā even inconsistent: how are photons or electrons supposed to know that they need to interfere with a positive or a negative sign? They are not supposed to know anything: knowledge is part of our interpretation of whatever it is that is going on there.

Hence, it is probably best to keep it simple, and think of the dichotomy in terms of the different physical dimensions of the oscillation: newton per kg versus newton per coulomb. And then, of course, we should also note that matter-particles have a rest mass and, therefore, actually carry charge. Photons do not. But both are two-dimensional oscillations, and the point is: the so-called vacuum – and the rest mass of our particle (which is zero for the photon and non-zero for everything else) – give us the natural frequency for both oscillations, which is beautifully summed up in that remarkable equation for the group and phase velocity of the wavefunction, which applies to photons as well as matter-particles:

(vphaseĀ·c)Ā·(vgroupĀ·c) = 1 ā vpĀ·vg = c2

The final question then is: why are photons spin-zero particles? Well… We should first remind ourselves of the fact that they do have spin when circularly polarized.[25] Here we may think of the rotation of the equivalent mass of their energy. However, if they are linearly polarized, then there is no spin. Even for circularly polarized waves, the spin angular momentum of photons is a weird concept. If photons have no (rest) mass, then they cannot carry any charge. They should, therefore, not have any magnetic moment. Indeed, what I wrote above shows an explanation of quantum-mechanical spin requires both mass as well as charge.[26]

# IX. Concluding remarks

There are, of course, other ways to look at the matter ā literally. For example, we can imagine two-dimensional oscillations as circular rather than linear oscillations. Think of a tiny ball, whose center of mass stays where it is, as depicted below. Any rotation ā around any axis ā will be some combination of a rotation around the two other axes. Hence, we may want to think of a two-dimensional oscillation as an oscillation of a polar and azimuthal angle.

Figure 8: Two-dimensional circular movement

The point of this paper is not to make any definite statements. That would be foolish. Its objective is just to challenge the simplistic mainstream viewpoint on the reality of the wavefunction. Stating that it is a mathematical construct only without physical significance amounts to saying it has no meaning at all. That is, clearly, a non-sustainable proposition.

The interpretation that is offered here looks at amplitude waves as traveling fields. Their physical dimension may be expressed in force per mass unit, as opposed to electromagnetic waves, whose amplitudes are expressed in force per (electric) charge unit. Also, the amplitudes of matter-waves incorporate a phase factor, but this may actually explain the rather enigmatic dichotomy between fermions and bosons and is, therefore, an added bonus.

The interpretation that is offered here has some advantages over other explanations, as it explains the how of diffraction and interference. However, while it offers a great explanation of the wave nature of matter, it does not explain its particle nature: while we think of the energy as being spread out, we will still observe electrons and photons as pointlike particles once they hit the detector. Why is it that a detector can sort of āhookā the whole blob of energy, so to speak?

The interpretation of the wavefunction that is offered here does not explain this. Hence, the complementarity principle of the Copenhagen interpretation of the wavefunction surely remains relevant.

# Appendix 1: The de Broglie relations and energy

The 1/2 factor in SchrĆ¶dingerās equation is related to the concept of the effective mass (meff). It is easy to make the wrong calculations. For example, when playing with the famous de Broglie relations ā aka as the matter-wave equations ā one may be tempted to derive the following energy concept:

1. E = hĀ·f and p = h/Ī». Therefore, f = E/h and Ī» = p/h.
2. v = fĀ·Ī» = (E/h)ā(p/h) = E/p
3. p = mĀ·v. Therefore, E = vĀ·p = mĀ·v2

E = mĀ·v2? This resembles the E = mc2 equation and, therefore, one may be enthused by the discovery, especially because the mĀ·v2 also pops up when working with the Least Action Principle in classical mechanics, which states that the path that is followed by a particle will minimize the following integral:Now, we can choose any reference point for the potential energy but, to reflect the energy conservation law, we can select a reference point that ensures the sum of the kinetic and the potential energy is zero throughout the time interval. If the force field is uniform, then the integrand will, effectively, be equal to KE ā PE = mĀ·v2.[27]

However, that is classical mechanics and, therefore, not so relevant in the context of the de Broglie equations, and the apparent paradox should be solved by distinguishing between the group and the phase velocity of the matter wave.

# Appendix 2: The concept of the effective mass

The effective mass ā as used in SchrĆ¶dingerās equation ā is a rather enigmatic concept. To make sure we are making the right analysis here, I should start by noting you will usually see SchrĆ¶dingerās equation written as:This formulation includes a term with the potential energy (U). In free space (no potential), this term disappears, and the equation can be re-written as:

āĻ(x, t)/āt = iĀ·(1/2)Ā·(Ä§/meff)Ā·ā2Ļ(x, t)

We just moved the iĀ·Ä§ coefficient to the other side, noting that 1/i = –i. Now, in one-dimensional space, and assuming Ļ is just the elementary wavefunction (so we substitute aĀ·eāiā[EĀ·t ā pāx]/Ä§ for Ļ), this implies the following:

āaĀ·iĀ·(E/Ä§)Ā·eāiā[EĀ·t ā pāx]/Ä§ = āiĀ·(Ä§/2meff)Ā·aĀ·(p2/Ä§2)Ā· eāiā[EĀ·t ā pāx]/Ä§

ā E = p2/(2meff) ā meff = mā(v/c)2/2 = māĪ²2/2

It is an ugly formula: it resembles the kinetic energy formula (K.E. = māv2/2) but it is, in fact, something completely different. The Ī²2/2 factor ensures the effective mass is always a fraction of the mass itself. To get rid of the ugly 1/2 factor, we may re-define meff as two times the old meff (hence, meffNEW = 2āmeffOLD), as a result of which the formula will look somewhat better:

meff = mā(v/c)2 = māĪ²2

We know Ī² varies between 0 and 1 and, therefore, meff will vary between 0 and m. Feynman drops the subscript, and just writes meff as m in his textbook (see Feynman, III-19). On the other hand, the electron mass as used is also the electron mass that is used to calculate the size of an atom (see Feynman, III-2-4). As such, the two mass concepts are, effectively, mutually compatible. It is confusing because the same mass is often defined as the mass of a stationary electron (see, for example, the article on it in the online Wikipedia encyclopedia[28]).

In the context of the derivation of the electron orbitals, we do have the potential energy term ā which is the equivalent of a source term in a diffusion equation ā and that may explain why the above-mentioned meff = mā(v/c)2 = māĪ²2 formula does not apply.

# References

This paper discusses general principles in physics only. Hence, references can be limited to references to physics textbooks only. For ease of reading, any reference to additional material has been limited to a more popular undergrad textbook that can be consulted online: Feynmanās Lectures on Physics (http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu). References are per volume, per chapter and per section. For example, Feynman III-19-3 refers to Volume III, Chapter 19, Section 3.

# Notes

[1] Of course, an actual particle is localized in space and can, therefore, not be represented by the elementary wavefunction Ļ = aĀ·eāiāĪøaĀ·eāi[EĀ·t ā pāx]/Ä§ = aĀ·(cosĪø iĀ·aĀ·sinĪø). We must build a wave packet for that: a sum of wavefunctions, each with its own amplitude ak and its own argument Īøk = (Ekāt – pkāx)/Ä§. This is dealt with in this paper as part of the discussion on the mathematical and physical interpretation of the normalization condition.

[2] The N/kg dimension immediately, and naturally, reduces to the dimension of acceleration (m/s2), thereby facilitating a direct interpretation in terms of Newtonās force law.

[3] In physics, a two-spring metaphor is more common. Hence, the pistons in the authorās perpetuum mobile may be replaced by springs.

[4] The author re-derives the equation for the Compton scattering radius in section VII of the paper.

[5] The magnetic force can be analyzed as a relativistic effect (see Feynman II-13-6). The dichotomy between the electric force as a polar vector and the magnetic force as an axial vector disappears in the relativistic four-vector representation of electromagnetism.

[6] For example, when using SchrĆ¶dingerās equation in a central field (think of the electron around a proton), the use of polar coordinates is recommended, as it ensures the symmetry of the Hamiltonian under all rotations (see Feynman III-19-3)

[7] This sentiment is usually summed up in the apocryphal quote: āGod does not play dice.āThe actual quote comes out of one of Einsteinās private letters to Cornelius Lanczos, another scientist who had also emigrated to the US. The full quote is as follows: “You are the only person I know who has the same attitude towards physics as I have: belief in the comprehension of reality through something basically simple and unified… It seems hard to sneak a look at God’s cards. But that He plays dice and uses ‘telepathic’ methods… is something that I cannot believe for a single moment.” (Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Albert Einstein, the Human Side: New Glimpses from His Archives, 1979)

[8] Of course, both are different velocities: Ļ is an angular velocity, while v is a linear velocity: Ļ is measured in radians per second, while v is measured in meter per second. However, the definition of a radian implies radians are measured in distance units. Hence, the physical dimensions are, effectively, the same. As for the formula for the total energy of an oscillator, we should actually write: E = mĀ·a2āĻ2/2. The additional factor (a) is the (maximum) amplitude of the oscillator.

[9] We also have a 1/2 factor in the E = mv2/2 formula. Two remarks may be made here. First, it may be noted this is a non-relativistic formula and, more importantly, incorporates kinetic energy only. Using the Lorentz factor (Ī³), we can write the relativistically correct formula for the kinetic energy as K.E. = E ā E0 = mvc2 ā m0c2 = m0Ī³c2 ā m0c2 = m0c2(Ī³ ā 1). As for the exclusion of the potential energy, we may note that we may choose our reference point for the potential energy such that the kinetic and potential energy mirror each other. The energy concept that then emerges is the one that is used in the context of the Principle of Least Action: it equals E = mv2. Appendix 1 provides some notes on that.

[10] Instead of two cylinders with pistons, one may also think of connecting two springs with a crankshaft.

[11] It is interesting to note that we may look at the energy in the rotating flywheel as potential energy because it is energy that is associated with motion, albeit circular motion. In physics, one may associate a rotating object with kinetic energy using the rotational equivalent of mass and linear velocity, i.e. rotational inertia (I) and angular velocity Ļ. The kinetic energy of a rotating object is then given by K.E. = (1/2)Ā·IĀ·Ļ2.

[12] Because of the sideways motion of the connecting rods, the sinusoidal function will describe the linear motion only approximately, but you can easily imagine the idealized limit situation.

[13] The Ļ2= 1/LC formula gives us the natural or resonant frequency for a electric circuit consisting of a resistor (R), an inductor (L), and a capacitor (C). Writing the formula as Ļ2= C1/L introduces the concept of elastance, which is the equivalent of the mechanical stiffness (k) of a spring.

[14] The resistance in an electric circuit introduces a damping factor. When analyzing a mechanical spring, one may also want to introduce a drag coefficient. Both are usually defined as a fraction of the inertia, which is the mass for a spring and the inductance for an electric circuit. Hence, we would write the resistance for a spring as Ī³m and as R = Ī³L respectively.

[15] Photons are emitted by atomic oscillators: atoms going from one state (energy level) to another. Feynman (Lectures, I-33-3) shows us how to calculate the Q of these atomic oscillators: it is of the order of 108, which means the wave train will last about 10ā8 seconds (to be precise, that is the time it takes for the radiation to die out by a factor 1/e). For example, for sodium light, the radiation will last about 3.2Ć10ā8 seconds (this is the so-called decay time Ļ). Now, because the frequency of sodium light is some 500 THz (500Ć1012 oscillations per second), this makes for some 16 million oscillations. There is an interesting paradox here: the speed of light tells us that such wave train will have a length of about 9.6 m! How is that to be reconciled with the pointlike nature of a photon? The paradox can only be explained by relativistic length contraction: in an analysis like this, one need to distinguish the reference frame of the photon ā riding along the wave as it is being emitted, so to speak ā and our stationary reference frame, which is that of the emitting atom.

[16] This is a general result and is reflected in the K.E. = T = (1/2)Ā·mĀ·Ļ2Ā·a2Ā·sin2(ĻĀ·t + Ī) and the P.E. = U = kĀ·x2/2 = (1/2)Ā· mĀ·Ļ2Ā·a2Ā·cos2(ĻĀ·t + Ī) formulas for the linear oscillator.

[17] Feynman further formalizes this in his Lecture on Superconductivity (Feynman, III-21-2), in which he refers to SchrĆ¶dingerās equation as the āequation for continuity of probabilitiesā. The analysis is centered on the local conservation of energy, which confirms the interpretation of SchrĆ¶dingerās equation as an energy diffusion equation.

[18] The meff is the effective mass of the particle, which depends on the medium. For example, an electron traveling in a solid (a transistor, for example) will have a different effective mass than in an atom. In free space, we can drop the subscript and just write meff = m. Appendix 2 provides some additional notes on the concept. As for the equations, they are easily derived from noting that two complex numbers a + iāb and c + iād are equal if, and only if, their real and imaginary parts are the same. Now, the āĻ/āt = iā(Ä§/meff)āā2Ļ equation amounts to writing something like this: a + iāb = iā(c + iād). Now, remembering that i2 = ā1, you can easily figure out that iā(c + iād) = iāc + i2ād = ā d + iāc.

[19] The dimension of B is usually written as N/(māA), using the SI unit for current, i.e. the ampere (A). However, 1 C = 1 Aās and, hence, 1 N/(māA) = 1 (N/C)/(m/s).

[20] Of course, multiplication with i amounts to a counterclockwise rotation. Hence, multiplication by –i also amounts to a rotation by 90 degrees, but clockwise. Now, to uniquely identify the clockwise and counterclockwise directions, we need to establish the equivalent of the right-hand rule for a proper geometric interpretation of SchrĆ¶dingerās equation in three-dimensional space: if we look at a clock from the back, then its hand will be moving counterclockwise. When writing B = (1/c)āiāE, we assume we are looking in the negative x-direction. If we are looking in the positive x-direction, we should write: B = -(1/c)āiāE. Of course, Nature does not care about our conventions. Hence, both should give the same results in calculations. We will show in a moment they do.

[21] In fact, when multiplying C2/(NĀ·m2) with N2/C2, we get N/m2, but we can multiply this with 1 = m/m to get the desired result. It is significant that an energy density (joule per unit volume) can also be measured in newton (force per unit area.

[22] The illustration shows a linearly polarized wave, but the obtained result is general.

[23] The sine and cosine are essentially the same functions, except for the difference in the phase: sinĪø = cos(ĪøāĻ /2).

[24] I must thank a physics blogger for re-writing the 1/(Īµ0Ā·Ī¼0) = c2 equation like this. See: http://reciprocal.systems/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=236 (retrieved on 29 September 2017).

[25] A circularly polarized electromagnetic wave may be analyzed as consisting of two perpendicular electromagnetic plane waves of equal amplitude and 90Ā° difference in phase.

[26] Of course, the reader will now wonder: what about neutrons? How to explain neutron spin? Neutrons are neutral. That is correct, but neutrons are not elementary: they consist of (charged) quarks. Hence, neutron spin can (or should) be explained by the spin of the underlying quarks.

[27] We detailed the mathematical framework and detailed calculations in the following online article: https://readingfeynman.org/2017/09/15/the-principle-of-least-action-re-visited.

[28] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_rest_mass (retrieved on 29 September 2017).

# Playing with amplitudes

Pre-script (dated 26 June 2020): This post got mutilated by the removal of some material by the dark force. You should be able to follow the main story line, however. If anything, the lack of illustrations might actually help you to think things through for yourself. In any case, we now have different views on these concepts as part of our realist interpretation of quantum mechanics, so we recommend you read our recent papers instead of these old blog posts.

Original post:

Let’s play a bit with the stuff we found in our previous post. This is going to be unconventional, or experimental, if you want. The idea is to give you… Well… Some ideas. So you can play yourself. š Let’s go.

Let’s first look at Feynman’s (simplified) formula for the amplitude of a photon to go from point aĀ to point b. If we identify point aĀ by the position vector r1Ā and point bĀ by the position vectorĀ r2, and using Dirac’s fancyĀ bra-ketĀ notation, then it’s written as:

So we have a vector dot product here: pār12Ā = |p|ā|r12|Ā·Ā cosĪø = pār12Ā·cosĪ±. The angle here (Ī±) is the angle between theĀ pĀ andĀ r12Ā vector. All good. Well… No. We’ve got a problem. When it comes to calculating probabilities, the Ī± angle doesn’t matter: |eiĀ·Īø/r|2Ā = 1/r2. Hence, for the probability, we get: P = |Ā ā©r2|r1āŖ |2Ā =Ā 1/r122. Always ! Now that’s strange. The Īø =Ā pār12/Ä§Ā argument gives us a different phase depending on the angle (Ī±) between p and r12. But… Well… Think of it:Ā cosĪ± goes from 1 to 0 when Ī± goes from 0 to Ā±90Ā° and, of course, is negative when p and r12Ā have opposite directions but… Well… According to this formula, the probabilitiesĀ doĀ not depend on the direction of the momentum. That’s just weird, I think. Did Feynman, in his iconicĀ Lectures, give us a meaningless formula?

Maybe. We may also note this function looks like the elementary wavefunction for any particle, which we wrote as:

Ļ(x, t) = aĀ·eāiāĪøĀ =Ā aĀ·eāiā(Eāt āĀ pāx)/Ä§= aĀ·eāiā(Eāt)/Ä§Ā·eiā(pāx)/Ä§

The only difference is that the ā©r2|r1āŖ sort of abstracts away from time, so… Well… Let’s get a feel for the quantities. Let’s think of a photon carryingĀ some typical amount of energy. Hence, let’s talk visible light and, therefore, photons of a few eV only – say 5.625 eV = 5.625Ć1.6Ć10ā19Ā J = 9Ć10ā19Ā J. Hence, their momentum is equal to p = E/c = (9Ć10ā19Ā NĀ·m)/(3Ć105Ā m/s) = 3Ć10ā24Ā NĀ·s. That’s tiny but that’s only becauseĀ newtonsĀ andĀ secondsĀ are enormous units at the (sub-)atomic scale. As for the distance, we may want to use the thickness of a playing card as a starter, as that’s what Young used when establishing the experimentalĀ fact of light interfering with itself. Now, playing cards in Young’s time were obviously rougher than those today, but let’s take the smaller distance: modern cards are as thin as 0.3 mm. Still, that distance is associated with a value ofĀ Īø that is equal to 13.6 million. Hence, theĀ densityĀ of our wavefunction is enormous at this scale, and it’s a bit of a miracle that Young could see any interference at all ! As shown in the table below, we only get meaningful values (remember:Ā Īø is a phase angle) when we go down to the nanometerĀ scale (10ā9Ā m) or, even better, theĀ angstroms scale ((10ā9Ā m).Ā

So… Well… Again: what can we do with Feynman’s formula? Perhaps he didn’t give us a propagatorĀ function but something that is more general (read: more meaningful) at our (limited) level of knowledge. As I’ve been reading Feynman for quite a while now – like three or four years š – I think… Well… Yes. That’s it. Feynman wants us to think about it. š Are you joking again, Mr. Feynman?Ā šĀ So let’s assume the reasonable thing: let’s assume it gives us the amplitude to go from point a toĀ point bĀ by the position vectorĀ along some path r.Ā So, then, in line with what we wrote in our previous post, let’s say pĀ·rĀ (momentum over a distance) is the action (S) we’d associate with this particular path (r) and then see where we get. So let’s writeĀ the formula like this:

ĻĀ =Ā aĀ·eiĀ·ĪøĀ = (1/r)Ā·eiĀ·S/Ä§Ā =Ā eiĀ·pār/Ä§/r

We’ll use an index to denote the various paths: r0Ā is the straight-line path and riĀ is any (other) path.Ā Now, quantum mechanics tells us we should calculate this amplitudeĀ for every possible path. The illustration below shows the straight-line path and two nearby paths. So each of these paths is associated with some amount of action, which we measure in PlanckĀ units:Ā Īø =Ā S/Ä§.Ā

The time interval is given by tĀ = t0Ā =Ā r0/c, for all paths. Why is the time interval the same for all paths? Because we think of a photon going from some specificĀ point in space and in timeĀ to some otherĀ specificĀ point in space and in time. Indeed, when everything is said and done, we do think of light as traveling from pointĀ a to pointĀ bĀ at the speed of light (c). In fact, all of the weird stuff here is all about trying to explain howĀ it does that. š

Now, if we would think of the photon actually traveling along this or that path, then this implies its velocityĀ along any of the nonlinear paths will be largerĀ thanĀ c, which is OK. That’s just the weirdness of quantum mechanics, and you should actuallyĀ notĀ think of the photon actually traveling along one of these paths anyway although we’ll often put it that way. Think of something fuzzier, whatever that may be. š

So the action is energy times time, or momentum times distance. Hence, the difference in action between two paths iĀ andĀ jĀ is given by:

Ī“SĀ = pĀ·rjĀ āĀ pĀ·riĀ = pĀ·(rjĀ ā ri) = pĀ·Īr

I’ll explain theĀ Ī“S <Ā 2ĻÄ§/3 thing in a moment. Let’s first pause and think about theĀ uncertainty and how we’re modeling it. We can effectively think of the variation in SĀ as some uncertaintyĀ in the action: Ī“SĀ = ĪS = pĀ·Īr. However, if SĀ is also equal to energy times time (SĀ = EĀ·t), and we insist tĀ is the same for all paths, then we must have some uncertainty in the energy, right? Hence, we can write Ī“SĀ as ĪS = ĪEĀ·t. But, of course, E =Ā E =Ā mĀ·c2Ā = pĀ·c, so we will have an uncertainty in the momentum as well. Hence, the variation inĀ SĀ should be written as:

Ī“SĀ = ĪSĀ = ĪpĀ·Īr

That’s just logical thinking: if we, somehow, entertain the idea of a photon going from someĀ specificĀ point in spacetime to some otherĀ specificĀ point in spacetime along various paths, then the variation, or uncertainty,Ā in the action will effectively combine some uncertainty in the momentum and the distance. We can calculate Īp as ĪE/c, so we get the following:

Ī“SĀ = ĪSĀ = ĪpĀ·Īr =Ā ĪEĀ·Īr/c = ĪEĀ·Īt with Īt =Ā Īr/c

So we have the two expressions for the Uncertainty Principle here: ĪSĀ = ĪpĀ·Īr =Ā ĪEĀ·Īt. Just be careful with the interpretation of Īt: it’s just the equivalent of Īr. We just express the uncertainty in distance in secondsĀ using the (absolute) speed of light. We are notĀ changing our spacetime interval: we’re still looking at a photon going fromĀ aĀ toĀ bĀ inĀ tĀ seconds,Ā exactly. Let’s now look at theĀ Ī“S <Ā 2ĻÄ§/3 thing. If we’re addingĀ twoĀ amplitudes (twoĀ arrowsĀ or vectors, so to speak) and we want the magnitude of the result to be larger than the magnitude of the two contributions, then the angle between them should be smaller than 120 degrees, so that’s 2Ļ/3 rad. The illustration below shows how you can figure that out geometrically.Hence, if S0Ā is the action for r0, then S1Ā = S0Ā + Ä§Ā and S2Ā = S0Ā + 2Ā·Ä§ are still good, but S3Ā = S0Ā + 3Ā·Ä§Ā isĀ notĀ good. Why? Because the difference in the phase angles is ĪĪøĀ =Ā S1/Ä§Ā āĀ S0/Ä§Ā = (S0Ā + Ä§)/Ä§Ā āĀ S0/Ä§ = 1 andĀ ĪĪø =Ā S2/Ä§Ā āĀ S0/Ä§Ā = (S0Ā + 2Ā·Ä§)/Ä§Ā āĀ S0/Ä§ = 2 respectively, so that’s 57.3Ā°Ā and 114.6Ā°Ā respectively and that’s, effectively,Ā lessĀ than 120Ā°. In contrast,Ā for the next path, we find that ĪĪøĀ =Ā S3/Ä§Ā āĀ S0/Ä§Ā = (S0Ā + 3Ā·Ä§)/Ä§Ā āĀ S0/Ä§ = 3, so that’s 171.9Ā°. So that amplitude gives us a negative contribution.

Let’s do some calculations using a spreadsheet. To simplify things, we will assume we measure everything (time, distance, force, mass, energy, action,…) in Planck units. Hence, we can simply write:Ā SnĀ = S0Ā + n. Of course, nĀ = 1, 2,… etcetera, right? Well… Maybe not. We areĀ measuringĀ action in units ofĀ Ä§, butĀ do we actually think actionĀ comesĀ in units ofĀ Ä§?Ā I am not sure. It would make sense, intuitively, butā¦ Wellā¦ Thereās uncertainty on the energy (E) and the momentum (p) of our photon, right? And how accurately can we measure the distance? So thereās some randomness everywhere. š¦ So let’s leave that question open as for now.

We will also assume that the phase angle forĀ S0Ā is equal to 0 (or some multiple of 2Ļ, if you want). That’s just a matter of choosing the origin of time. This makes it really easy: ĪSnĀ =Ā SnĀ ā S0Ā = n, and the associated phase angle ĪønĀ = ĪĪønĀ is the same. In short, the amplitude for each path reduces to ĻnĀ = eiĀ·n/r0. So we need to add these firstĀ andĀ thenĀ calculate the magnitude, which we can then square to get a probability. Of course, there is also the issue of normalization (probabilities have to add up to one) but let’s tackle that later. For the calculations, we use Euler’s rĀ·eiĀ·ĪøĀ = rĀ·(cosĪø + iĀ·sinĪø) = rĀ·cosĪø + iĀ·rĀ·sinĪø formula. Needless to say, |rĀ·eiĀ·Īø|2Ā = |r|2Ā·|eiĀ·Īø|2Ā = |r|2Ā·(cos2Īø + sin2Īø) = r. Finally, when adding complex numbers, we add the real and imaginary parts respectively, and we’ll denote the Ļ0Ā + Ļ1Ā +Ļ2Ā + … sum as ĪØ.

Now, we also need to see how our ĪSĀ = ĪpĀ·ĪrĀ works out. We may want to assume that the uncertainty in p and in r will both be proportional to the overall uncertainty in the action. For example, we could try writing the following:Ā ĪSnĀ = ĪpnĀ·ĪrnĀ =Ā nĀ·Īp1Ā·Īr1. It also makes sense that you may want ĪpnĀ and ĪrnĀ to be proportional to Īp1Ā and Īr1Ā respectively. Combining both, the assumption would be this:

ĪpnĀ =Ā ānĀ·Īp1Ā andĀ ĪrnĀ =Ā ānĀ·Īr1

So now we just need to decide how we will distribute ĪS1Ā =Ā Ä§Ā = 1 over Īp1Ā and Īr1Ā respectively. For example, if we’d assume Īp1Ā = 1, then Īr1Ā = Ä§/Īp1Ā = 1/1 = 1. These are the calculations. I will let you analyze them. šWell… We get a weird result. It reminds me ofĀ Feynman’s explanation of the partial reflection of light, shown below, but… Well… That doesn’t make much sense, does it?

Hmm… Maybe it does. š Look at the graph more carefully. The peaks sort of oscillate out so… Well… That might make sense… š

Does it? Are we doingĀ something wrongĀ here? These amplitudes should reflect the ones that are reflected in those nice animations (like this one, for example, which is part of thatās part of the Wikipedia article on Feynmanās path integral formulation of quantum mechanics). So what’s wrong, if anything? Well… Our paths differ by some fixed amount of action, which doesn’t quite reflect the geometric approach that’s used in those animations. The graph below shows how the distanceĀ rĀ varies as a function ofĀ n.Ā

If we’d use a model in which the distance wouldĀ increaseĀ linearly or, preferably, exponentially, then we’d get the result we want to get, right?

Well… Maybe. Let’s try it.Ā Hmm… We need to think about the geometry here. Look at the triangle below.Ā IfĀ bĀ is the straight-line path (r0), thenĀ acĀ could be one of the crooked paths (rn). To simplify, we’ll assume isosceles triangles, soĀ aĀ equalsĀ cĀ and, hence, rnĀ = 2Ā·a = 2Ā·c. We will also assume theĀ successive paths are separated by the same vertical distance (h =Ā h1) right in the middle, so hbĀ =Ā hnĀ = nĀ·h1.Ā It is then easy to show the following:This gives the following graph for rnĀ = 10 and h1Ā = 0.01.

Is this the right step increase? Not sure. We can vary the values in our spreadsheet. Let’s first build it. TheĀ photon will have to travel faster in order to cover the extra distance in the same time, so its momentum will be higher. Let’s think about the velocity. Let’s start with the first path (nĀ = 1). In order to cover the extraĀ distance Īr1, the velocity c1Ā must be equal to (r0Ā + Īr1)/tĀ = r0/tĀ + Īr1/t =Ā cĀ + Īr1/tĀ = c0Ā + Īr1/t. We can write c1Ā as c1Ā =Ā c0Ā + Īc1, so Īc1Ā = Īr1/t.Ā Now, theĀ ratioĀ of p1Ā  and p0Ā will be equal to theĀ ratioĀ of c1Ā andĀ c0Ā because p1/p0Ā = (mc1)/mc0) = c1/c0. Hence, we have the following formula for p1:

p1Ā = p0Ā·c1/c0Ā = p0Ā·(c0Ā + Īc1)/c0Ā = p0Ā·[1 + Īr1/(c0Ā·t) = p0Ā·(1 + Īr1/r0)

ForĀ pn, the logic is the same, so we write:

pnĀ = p0Ā·cn/c0Ā = p0Ā·(c0Ā + Īcn)/c0Ā = p0Ā·[1 + Īrn/(c0Ā·t) = p0Ā·(1 + Īrn/r0)

Let’s do the calculations, and let’s use meaningful values, so the nanometer scale and actual values for Planck’s constant and the photon momentum. The results are shown below.Ā

Pretty interesting. In fact, this looksĀ reallyĀ good. TheĀ probabilityĀ first swings around wildly, because of these zones of constructive and destructive interference, but then stabilizes. [Of course, I would need to normalize the probabilities, but you get the idea, right?] So… Well… I think we get a veryĀ meaningful result with this model. Sweet ! š I’m lovin’ it ! š And, here you go, this is (part of) the calculation table, so you can see what I am doing. š

The graphs below look even better: I just changed the h1/r0Ā ratio from 1/100 to 1/10. The probability stabilizes almost immediately. š So… Well… It’s not as fancy as the referenced animation, but I think the educational value of this thing here is at least as good ! š

š This is good stuff… š

Post scriptum (19 September 2017): There is an obvious inconsistency in the model above, and in the calculations. We assume there is a path r1Ā = ,Ā r2, r2,etcetera, and then we calculate the action for it, and the amplitude, and then we add the amplitude to the sum. But, surely, we should count these paths twice, in two-dimensional space, that is. Think of the graph: we have positive and negative interference zones that are sort of layered around the straight-line path, as shown below.

In three-dimensional space, these lines become surfaces. Hence, rather than adding oneĀ arrow for everyĀ Ī“Ā Ā having oneĀ contribution only, we may want to add… Well… In three-dimensional space, the formula for the surface around the straight-line path would probably look like ĻĀ·hnĀ·r1, right? Hmm… Interesting idea. I changed my spreadsheet to incorporate that idea, and I got the graph below. It’s a nonsensical result, because the probability does swing around, but it gradually spins out of control: it never stabilizes.That’s because we increase theĀ weightĀ of the paths that are further removed from the center. So… Well… We shouldn’t be doing that, I guess. š I’ll you look for the right formula, OK? Let me know when you found it. š

Some content on this page was disabled on June 16, 2020 as a result of a DMCA takedown notice from The California Institute of Technology. You can learn more about the DMCA here:

# The Principle of Least Action re-visited

Pre-script (dated 26 June 2020): This post got mutilated by the removal of some material by the dark force. You should be able to follow the main story line, however. If anything, the lack of illustrations might actually help you to think things through for yourself. In any case, we now have different views on these concepts as part of our realist interpretation of quantum mechanics, so we recommend you read our recent papers instead of these old blog posts.

Original post:

As I was posting some remarks on the Exercises that come with Feynman’sĀ Lectures,Ā I was thinking I should do another post on the Principle of Least Action, and how it is used in quantum mechanics. It is an interesting matter, because the Principle of Least Action sort of connects classical and quantum mechanics.

Let us first re-visit the Principle in classical mechanics. The illustrations which Feynman uses in his iconicĀ exposĆ©Ā on it are copied below. You know what they depict: some object that goes up in the air, and then comes back down because of… Well… Gravity. Hence, we have a force field and, therefore, some potential which gives our object some potential energy. The illustration is nice because we can apply it any (uniform) force field, so let’s analyze it a bit more in depth.

We know the actualĀ trajectory – which Feynman writes as x(t) =Ā x(t)Ā +Ā Ī·(t) so as to distinguish it from some other nearby path x(t) – willĀ minimizeĀ the value of the following integral:

In the mentioned post, I try to explain what the formula actually means by breaking it up in two separate integrals: one with the kinetic energy in the integrand and – you guessed it š – one with the potential energy. We can choose any reference point for our potential energy, of course, but to better reflect the energy conservation principle, we assume PE = 0 at the highest point. This ensures that theĀ sumĀ of the kinetic and the potential energy is zero. For a mass of 5 kg (think of the ubiquitous cannon ball), and a (maximum) height of 50 m, we got the following graph.

Just to make sure, here is how we calculate KE and PE as a function of time:

We can, of course, also calculate the action as a function of time:

Note the integrand: KEĀ ā PEĀ = mĀ·v2. Strange, isn’t it? It’sĀ likeĀ EĀ =Ā mĀ·c2, right? We get aĀ weird cubic function, which I plotted below (blue). I added the function for theĀ heightĀ (but inĀ millimeter) because of the different scales.

So what’s going on? The action concept is interesting. As theĀ productĀ of force, distance and time, it makes intuitive sense: it’s force over distance over time. To cover some distance in some force field, energy will be used or spent but, clearly, the timeĀ that is needed should matter as well, right? Yes. But the question is:Ā how, exactly? Let’s analyze what happens fromĀ tĀ = 0 toĀ tĀ = 3.2 seconds, so that’s the trajectory fromĀ hĀ = 0 to the highest point (hĀ = 50 m). The actionĀ that is required toĀ bring our 5 kg object there would be equal to FĀ·hĀ·t = mĀ·gĀ·hĀ·tĀ =Ā 5Ć9.8Ć50Ć3.2 = 7828.9Ā JĀ·s. [I use non-rounded values in my calculations.]Ā However, our action integral tells us it’s only 5219.6Ā JĀ·s. The difference (2609.3 JĀ·s) is explained by the initial velocity and, hence, the initial kinetic energy, which we got for free, so to speak, and which, over the time interval, is spent asĀ action. So our action integral gives us a netĀ value, so to speak.

To be precise, we can calculate the time rate of change of the kinetic energy as d(KE)/dtĀ = ā1533.7 + 480.2Ā·t, so that’s a linear function of time. The graph below shows how it works. The time rate of change is initially negative, asĀ kinetic energy gets spent and increases the potential energy of our object. At the maximum height, the time of rate of change is zero. The object then starts falling, and the time rate of change becomes positive, as the velocity of our object goes from zero to… Well… The velocity is a linear function of time as well:Ā vĀ =Ā v0Ā ā gĀ·t, remember? Hence, atĀ tĀ = v0/g = 31.3/9.8 = 3.2 s, the velocity becomesĀ negativeĀ so our cannon ball is, effectively, falling down. Of course, as it falls down and gains speed, it covers more and more distance per secondĀ and, therefore, the associated actionĀ also goes up exponentially. Just re-define our starting point atĀ tĀ = 3.2 s. The mĀ·v0tĀ·(v0Ā āĀ gt) term is zero at that point, and so then it’s only the mĀ·g2Ā·t3/3 term that counts.

So… Yes. That’s clear enough. But it still doesn’t answer the fundamental question: how does that minimization of SĀ (or the maximization ofĀ āS) work,Ā exactly? Well… It’s not likeĀ NatureĀ knows it wants to go from pointĀ aĀ to pointĀ b, and then sort of works out some least actionĀ algorithm. No. The true path is given by the force law which,Ā at every point in spacetime, will accelerate, or decelerate, our object at a rateĀ aĀ that is equal to the ratio of the force and the mass of our object. In this case, we write:Ā aĀ = F/mĀ = mĀ·g/m = g, so that’s the acceleration of gravity. That’s the onlyĀ realĀ thing: all of the above is just math, someĀ mental construct, so to speak.

Of course, this acceleration, or deceleration, then gives the velocity and the kinetic energy. Hence, once again, it’s not like we’re choosingĀ some average for our kinetic energy: the force (gravity, in this particular case) just give us that average. Likewise, the potential energy depends on the position of our object, which we get from… Well… Where it starts and where it goes, so it also depends on the velocity and, hence, the acceleration or deceleration from the force field. So there isĀ noĀ optimization. No teleology.Ā Newton’s force law gives us the true path. If we drop something down, it will go down in a straight line, because any deviation from it would add to the distance. A more complicated illustration is Fermat’s Principle of Least Time, which combines distance and time. But we won’t go into any further detail here. Just note that, in classical mechanics, the true path can, effectively, be associated with a minimumĀ value for that action integral: any other path will be associated with a higher S. So we’re done with classical mechanics here. What about the Principle of Least Action in quantum mechanics?

## The Principle of Least Action in quantum mechanics

We have the uncertainty in quantum mechanics: there is no unique path. However, we can, effectively, associate each possible path with a definite amount of action, which we will also write as S. However, instead of talkingĀ velocities, we’ll usually want to talkĀ momentum. Photons have no rest mass (m0Ā = 0), but they do haveĀ momentumĀ because of their energy: for a photon, the E = mĀ·c2Ā equation can be rewritten as E = pĀ·c, and the Einstein-Planck relation for photons tells us the photon energy (E) is related to the frequency (f): E = hĀ·f. Now, for a photon, the wavelength is given by fĀ = c/Ī».Ā Hence, p = E/c = hĀ·f/c= h/Ī» = Ä§Ā·k.

OK. What’s the action integral? What’s the kinetic and potential energy? Let’s just try the energy: E = mĀ·c2. It reflects theĀ KEĀ ā PEĀ = mĀ·v2Ā formula we used above. Of course, the energy of a photon doesĀ notĀ vary, so the value of our integral is just the energy times the travel time, right? What is the travel time? Let’s do things properly by using vector notations here, so we will have two position vectorsĀ r1Ā andĀ r2Ā for point aĀ andĀ b respectively. We can then define a vector pointing fromĀ r1Ā toĀ r2, which we will write as r12. The distance between the two points is then, obviously, equal to|r12| = ār122Ā =Ā r12. Our photon travels at the speed of light, so theĀ timeĀ interval will be equal toĀ tĀ = r12/c. So we get a very simple formula for the action:Ā SĀ = EĀ·t = pĀ·cĀ·tĀ = pĀ·cĀ·r12/cĀ = pĀ·r12. Now, it may or may not make sense to assume that the directionĀ of the momentum of our photon and the direction of r12Ā are somewhat different, so we’ll want to re-write this as a vector dot product: S =Ā pĀ·r12. [Of course, you know theĀ pār12Ā dot product equals |p|ā|r12|Ā· cosĪø = pār12Ā·cosĪø, with Īø the angle betweenĀ pĀ andĀ r12. If the angle is the same, then cosĪø is equal to 1. If the angle is Ā± Ļ/2, then itās 0.]

So now we minimize the action so as to determine the actualĀ path? No. We have this weird stopwatchĀ stuff in quantum mechanics.Ā We’ll use this S =Ā pĀ·r12Ā value to calculate a probability amplitude. So we’ll associate trajectories with amplitudes, and we just use the action values to do so. This is how it works (don’t ask me why – not now, at least):

1. We measure action in units of Ä§, because… Well… Planck’s constant is a pretty fundamental unit of action, right? š So we write Īø = S/Ä§Ā =Ā pĀ·r12/Ä§.
2. Īø usually denotes an angle, right? Right. Īø = pĀ·r12/Ä§Ā is the so-called phase of… Well… A proper wavefunction:

Ļ(p,Ā r12) = aĀ·eiĀ·ĪøĀ = (1/r12)Ā·eiĀ·pār12/Ä§Ā Ā Ā

Wow !Ā I realize you may never have seen this… Well… It’s myĀ derivation of what physicists refer to as theĀ propagator functionĀ for a photon. If you google it, you may see it written like this (most probably not, however, as it’s usually couched in more abstract math):This formulation looks slightly better because it uses Diracs bra-ketĀ notation:Ā the initialĀ state of our photon is written as ā©Ā r1|Ā and its final state is, accordingly, |r2āŖ. But it’s the same: it’s the amplitude for our photon to go from point aĀ to pointĀ b. In case you wonder, the 1/r12Ā coefficient is there to take care of the inverse square law. I’ll let you think about that for yourself. It’s just like any other physical quantity (orĀ intensity, if you want): they get diluted as the distance increases. [Note that we get the inverse square (1/r122)Ā when calculating a probability, which we do byĀ taking the absolute square of our amplitude:Ā |(1/r12)Ā·eiĀ·pār12/Ä§|2Ā = |1/r122)|2Ā·|eiĀ·pār12/Ä§|2Ā = 1/r122.]

So… Well… Now we are ready to understand Feynman’s own summary of his path integral formulation of quantum mechanics:Ā Ā explanation words:

āHere is how it works: Suppose that for all paths, SĀ is very large compared to Ä§.Ā One path contributes a certain amplitude. For a nearby path, the phase is quite different, because with an enormous SĀ even a small change in SĀ means a completely different phaseābecause Ä§Ā is so tiny. So nearby paths will normally cancel their effects out in taking the sumāexcept for one region, and that is when a path and a nearby path all give the same phase in the first approximation (more precisely, the same action within Ä§). Only those paths will be the important ones.”

You are now, finally, ready to understand that wonderful animation that’s part of the Wikipedia article on Feynman’s path integral formulation of quantum mechanics. Check it out, and let the author (not me, butĀ a guy who identifies himself asĀ Juan David) I think it’s great ! š

## Explaining diffraction

All of the above is nice, but how does it work? What’s the geometry? Let me be somewhat more adventurous here. So we have our formula forĀ theĀ amplitudeĀ of a photon to go from one pointĀ to another:The formula is far too simple, if only because it assumes photons always travel at the speed of light. As explained in an older post of mine, a photon also has an amplitude to travel slower or faster than cĀ (I know that sounds crazy, but it is what it is) and a more sophisticated propagator function will acknowledge that and, unsurprisingly, ensure the spacetime intervals that are more light-like make greater contributions to the ‘final arrow’, as Feynman (or his student, Ralph Leighton, I should say) put it in his Strange Theory of Light and Matter. However, then we’d need to use four-vector notation and we don’t want to do that here. The simplified formula above serves the purpose. We can re-write it as:

Ļ(p,Ā r12) =Ā aĀ·eiĀ·ĪøĀ = (1/r12)Ā·eiĀ·S/Ä§Ā = eiĀ·pār12/Ä§/r12

Again, S =Ā pĀ·r12Ā is just the amount ofĀ actionĀ we calculate for the path. Action is energy over some time (1 NĀ·mĀ·s = 1 JĀ·s), or momentum over some distance (1 kgĀ·(m/s)Ā·m = 1 NĀ·(s2/m)Ā·(m/s)Ā·m) = 1 NĀ·mĀ·s). For a photon traveling at the speed of light, we have E = pĀ·c, and tĀ =Ā r12/c, so we get a very simple formula for the action:Ā SĀ = EĀ·tĀ = pĀ·r12. Now, we know that, in quantum mechanics, we have to add the amplitudes for the various paths between r1Ā and r2Ā so we get a ‘final arrow’ whose absolute square gives us the probability of… Well… Our photon going from r1Ā and r2. You also know that we don’t really know what actually happens in-between: we know amplitudes interfere, but that’s what we’re modeling when adding the arrows. Let me copy one of Feynman’s famous drawings so we’re sure we know what we’re talking about.Our simplified approach (the assumption of light traveling at the speed of light) reduces our least action principle to a least time principle: the arrows associated with the path of least time and the paths immediately left and right of it that make the biggestĀ contributionĀ to the final arrow. Why? Think of the stopwatch metaphor: these stopwatches arrive around the same time and, hence, their hands point more or less in the same direction. It doesnāt matter what direction ā as long as itās more or lessĀ the same.

Now let me copy the illustrations he uses to explain diffraction. Look at them carefully, and read the explanation below.

When the slit is large, our photon is likely to travel in a straight line. There are many otherĀ possibleĀ paths – crooked paths – but the amplitudes that are associated with those other paths cancel each other out. In contrast, the straight-line path and, importantly, the nearbyĀ paths, are associated with amplitudes that have the same phase, more or less.

However, when the slit is very narrow, there is a problem. AsĀ Feynman puts it, “there are not enough arrows to cancel each other out” and, therefore, the crooked paths are also associated with sizable probabilities. Now how does that work, exactly? Not enough arrows? Why? Let’s have a look at it.

The phase (Īø) of our amplitudes aĀ·eiĀ·ĪøĀ = (1/r12)Ā·eiĀ·S/Ä§Ā is measured in units of Ä§:Ā Īø = S/Ä§. Hence, we should measure the variation in SĀ in units of Ä§. Consider two paths, for example: one for which the action is equal to S, and one for which the action is equal toĀ SĀ +Ā Ī“SĀ =Ā SĀ +Ā ĻĀ·Ä§, so Ī“SĀ = ĻĀ·Ä§.Ā They will cancel each other out:

eiĀ·S/Ä§/r12Ā + eiĀ·(SĀ +Ā Ī“S)/Ä§/r12Ā = (1/r12)Ā·(eiĀ·S/Ä§/r12Ā + eiĀ·(S+ĻĀ·Ä§)/Ä§/r12Ā )

= (1/r12)Ā·(eiĀ·S/Ä§Ā + eiĀ·S/Ä§Ā·eiĀ·Ļ) = (1/r12)Ā·(eiĀ·S/Ä§Ā ā eiĀ·S/Ä§) = 0

So nearby paths will interfere constructively, so to speak, by making the final arrow larger. In order for that to happen,Ā Ī“S should be smaller thanĀ 2ĻÄ§/3 ā 2Ä§, as shown below.

Why? That’s just the way the addition of angles work. Look at the illustration below: if the red arrow is the amplitude to which we are adding another, any amplitude whose phase angle is smaller thanĀ 2ĻÄ§/3 ā 2Ä§Ā will add something to its length. That’s what the geometry of the situation tells us. [If you have time, you can perhaps find some algebraic proof: let me know the result!]
We need to note a few things here. First, unlike what you might think, the amplitudes of theĀ higher and lower path in the drawing do notĀ cancel. On the contrary, the action SĀ is the same, so their magnitudes just add up. Second, if this logic is correct, we will have alternating zones with paths that interfere positively and negatively, as shown below.

Interesting geometry. How relevant are these zones as we move out from the center, steadily increasing Ī“S? I am not quite sure. I’d have to get into the math of it all, which I don’t want to do in a blog like this. What I do want to do is re-examine is Feynman’s intuitive explanation of diffraction: when the slit is very narrow, “there are not enough arrows to cancel each other out.”

Huh?Ā What’s that?Ā Can’t we add more paths? It’s a tricky question. We are measuringĀ action in units ofĀ Ä§, butĀ do we actually think action comesĀ in units ofĀ Ä§?Ā I am not sure. It would make sense, intuitively, but… Well… There’s uncertainty on the energy (E) and the momentum (p) of our photon, right? And how accurately can we measure the distance? So there’s some randomness everywhere. Having said that, the whole argument does requires us to assume action effectivelyĀ comesĀ in units of Ä§:Ā Ä§Ā is, effectively, theĀ scaling factorĀ here.

So how can we have more paths? More arrows? I don’t think so. We measure SĀ as energy over some time, or as momentum over some distance, and we express all these quantities in old-fashioned SI units: newtonĀ for the force,Ā meterĀ for the distance, andĀ secondĀ for the time. If we want smaller arrows, we’ll have to use other units, but then the numericalĀ value forĀ Ä§Ā will change too! So… Well… No. I don’t think so. And it’s not because of the normalization rule (all probabilities have to add up to one, so we do some have some re-scaling for that). That doesn’t matter, really. What matters is the physics behind the formula, and the formula tells us the physical reality isĀ Ä§. So the geometry of the situation is what it is.

Hmm… I guess that, at this point, we should wrap up our rather intuitive discussion here, and resort to the mathematical formalism of Feynman’s path integral formulation, but you can find that elsewhere.

Post scriptum: I said I would show how the Principle of Least Action is relevant to both classical as well as quantum mechanics. Well… Let me quote the Master once more:

“So in the limiting case in which Planckās constant Ä§Ā goes to zero, the correct quantum-mechanical laws can be summarized by simply saying: āForget about all these probability amplitudes. The particle does go on a special path, namely, that one for which SĀ does not vary in the first approximation.ā”

So thatās how the Principle of Least Action sort of unifies quantum mechanics as well as classical mechanics. š

Post scriptumĀ 2: In my next post, I’ll be doing some calculations. They will answer the question as to how relevant those zones of positive and negative interference further away from the straight-line path. I’ll give a numerical exampleĀ which shows the 1/r12Ā factor does its job. š Just have a look at it. š

Some content on this page was disabled on June 16, 2020 as a result of a DMCA takedown notice from The California Institute of Technology. You can learn more about the DMCA here:

# Newtonian, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics

Post scriptumĀ (dated 16 November 2015): You’ll smile because… Yes, I am startingĀ this post with aĀ postĀ scriptum, indeed. š I’ve added it, a year later or so, because, before you continue to read, you should note I amĀ notĀ going to explain the Hamiltonian matrix here, as it’s used in quantum physics. That’s the topic of another post, which involves far more advanced mathematical concepts. If you’re here for that, don’t read this post. Just go to my post on the matrixĀ indeed. šĀ But so here’s my original post.Ā I wrote it to tie up some loose end. š

As an economist, I thought I knew a thing or two about optimization. Indeed, when everything is said and done, optimization is supposed to an economist’s forte, isn’t it? š Hence, I thought I sort of understood what a Lagrangian would represent in physics, and I also thought I sort of intuitively understood why and how it could be used it to model the behavior of a dynamic system. In short, I thought that Lagrangian mechanics would be all about optimizing something subject to some constraints. Just like in economics, right?

[…] Well… When checking it out, I found that the answer is: yes, and no. And, frankly, the honest answer is more no than yes. š Economists (like me), and all social scientists (I’d think), learn only about one particular type of Lagrangian equations: the so-calledĀ Lagrange equations of the first kind. This approach models constraints as equations that are to be incorporated in an objective function (which is also referred to as a Lagrangianāand that’s where the confusion starts because it’s different from the Lagrangian that’s used in physics, which I’ll introduce below) using so-called Lagrange multipliers. If you’re an economist, you’ll surely remember it: it’s a problem written as “maximize f(x, y) subject to g(x, y) = c”, and we solve it by finding the so-called stationary points (i.e. the points for which the derivative is zero) of the (Lagrangian) objective function f(x, y) + Ī»[g(x, y)Ā ā c].

Now, it turns out that, in physics, they use so-calledĀ Lagrange equations of the second kind, which incorporate the constraints directly by what Wikipedia refers to as a “judicious choice of generalized coordinates.”

Generalized coordinates? Don’t worry about it: while generalized coordinates are defined formally as “parameters that describe the configuration of the system relative to some reference configuration”, they are, in practice, those coordinates that make the problem easy to solve. For example, for a particle (or point) that moves on a circle, we’d not use the Cartesian coordinates x and y but just the angle that locates the particles (or point). That simplifies matters because then we only need to find one variable. In practice,Ā the number of parameters (i.e. the number of generalized coordinates) will be defined by the number of degrees of freedom of the system, and we know what that means: it’s the number of independent directions in which the particle (or point) can move. Now, those independent directions may or may not include the x, y and z directions (they may actually excludeĀ one of those), and they also may or may not includeĀ rotational and/or vibratory movements. We went over that when discussing kinetic gas theory, so I won’t say more about that here.

So… OK… That was my first surprise: the physicist’s Lagrangian is different from the social scientist’s Lagrangian.Ā

The second surprise was thatĀ all physics textbooks seem to dislike the Lagrangian approach. Indeed, they opt for a related but different function when developing a model of a dynamic system: it’s a functionĀ referred to as the Hamiltonian. The modeling approach which uses the Hamiltonian instead of the Lagrangian is, of course, referred to as Hamiltonian mechanics. We may think the preference for the Hamiltonian approach has to do with William Rowan Hamilton being Anglo-Irish, while Joseph-Louis Lagrange (born asĀ Giuseppe Lodovico Lagrangia)Ā was Italian-French but… No. š

And then we have good oldĀ Newtonian mechanics as well, obviously. In case you wonder what that is: it’s the modeling approach that we’ve been using all along. š But I’ll remind you of what it is in a moment: it amounts to making sense of some situation by using Newton’s laws of motion only, rather than a more sophisticated mathematical argument using more abstract concepts, such as energy, orĀ action.

Introducing Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics is quite confusing because the functions that are involved (i.e. the so-called Lagrangian and Hamiltonian functions) look very similar: we write the Lagrangian as theĀ differenceĀ between the kinetic and potential energy of a system (L = TĀ ā V), while the Hamiltonian is the sum of both (H = T + V).Ā Now, I could make this post very simple and just ask you to note that both approaches are basically ‘equivalent’ (in the sense that they lead to the same solutions, i.e. the same equations of motion expressed as a function of time) and that a choice between them is just a matter of preferenceālike choosing between an English versus a continental breakfast. š Of course, an English breakfast has usually some extra bacon, or a sausage, so you get more but… Well… Not necessarily something better. š So that would be the end of this digression then, and I should be done.Ā However, I must assume you’re a curious person, just like me, and, hence, you’ll say that, while being ‘equivalent’, they’re obviously not the same. So how do the two approaches differ exactly?

Let’s try to get a somewhat intuitive understanding of it all by taking, once again, the example of a simple harmonic oscillator, as depicted below. It could be a mass on a spring. In fact, our example will, in fact, be that of an oscillating mass on a spring. Let’s also assume there’s no damping, because that makes the analysis soooooooo much easier.

Of course, we alreadyĀ knowĀ all of the relevant equations for this system just from applying Newton’s laws (so that’s Newtonian mechanics). We did that in a previous post. [I can’t remember which one, but I am sure I’ve done this already.] Hence, we don’t reallyĀ need the Lagrangian or Hamiltonian. But, of course, that’s the point of this post: I want toĀ illustrateĀ how these other approaches to modeling a dynamic system actually work, and so it’s good we have the correct answer already so we can make sure we’re not going off track here. So… Let’s go… š

I. Newtonian mechanics

Let me recapitulate the basics of a mass on a spring which, in jargon, is called a harmonic oscillator. Hooke’s law is there: the force on the mass is proportional to its distance from the zero point (i.e. the displacement), and the direction of the force is towards the zero pointānot away from it, and so we have a minus sign. In short, we can write:

F = ākx (i.e. Hooke’s law)

Now, Newton‘s Law (Newton’sĀ secondĀ law to be precise) says that F is equal to the mass times the acceleration: F = ma. So we write:

F = ma = m(d2x/dt2) = ākx

So that’s just Newton’s law combined with Hooke’s law.Ā We know this is a differential equation for which there’s a general solution with the following form:

x(t) = AĀ·cos(Ļt +Ā Ī±)

If you wonder why… Well… I can’t digress on that here again: just note, from that differential equation, that we apparently need a function x(t) that yields itself when differentiated twice. So that must be some sinusoidal function, like sine or cosine, because these do that. […] OK… Sorry, but I must move on.

As for the new ‘variables’ (A, Ļ and Ī±),Ā A depends on the initial condition and is the (maximum) amplitude of the motion. We also already know from previous posts (or, more likely, because you already know a lot about physics) that A is related to the energy of the system. To be precise: the energy of the system is proportional to theĀ squareĀ of the amplitude: E ā A2. As forĀ Ļ, theĀ angularĀ frequency, that’s determined by the spring itself and the oscillating mass on it:Ā Ļ = (k/m)1/2Ā = 2Ļ/T = 2ĻfĀ (with T the period, and f the frequency expressed in oscillations per second, as opposed to the angular frequency, which is the frequency expressed in radians per second). Finally, I should note that Ī± is just a phase shift which depends on how we define our t = 0 point: if x(t) is zero at t = 0, then that cosine function should be zero and thenĀ Ī± will be equal to Ā±Ļ/2.

OK. That’s clear enough. What about the ‘operational currency of the universe’, i.e. the energy of the oscillator? Well… I told you already/ We don’t need the energy concept here to find the equation of motion. In fact, that’s what distinguishes this ‘Newtonian’ approach from the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian approach. But… Now that we’re at it, and we have to move to a discussion of these two animals (I mean the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian), let’s go for it.

We have kinetic versus potential energy. Kinetic energy (T) is what it always is. It depends on the velocityĀ and the mass: K.E. = T = mv2/2 = m(dx/dt)2/2 = p2/2m. Huh?Ā What’s this expression with p in it? […] It’s momentum: p = mv. Just check it: it’s an alternative formula for T really. Nothing more, nothing less. I am just noting it here because it will pop up again in our discussion of the Hamiltonian modeling approach. But that’s for later. Onwards!

What about potential energy (V)? We know that’s equal to V = kx2/2. And because energy is conserved, potential energy (V) and kinetic energy (T) should add up to some constant. Let’s check it:Ā dx/dt =Ā d[Acos(Ļt +Ā Ī±)]/dt = āAĻsin(Ļt +Ā Ī±). [Please do the derivation: don’t accept things at face value. :-)] Hence, T = mA2Ļ2sin2(Ļt +Ā Ī±)/2 = mA2(k/m)sin2(Ļt +Ā Ī±)/2 = kA2sin2(Ļt +Ā Ī±)/2. Now, V is equal to V = kx2/2 = k[Acos(Ļt +Ā Ī±)]2/2 = k[Acos(Ļt +Ā Ī±)]2/2 =Ā kA2cos2(Ļt +Ā Ī±)/2. Adding both yields:

T + V = kA2sin2(Ļt +Ā Ī±)/2 + kA2cos2(Ļt +Ā Ī±)/2

= (1/2)kA2[sin2(Ļt +Ā Ī±) + cos2(Ļt +Ā Ī±)] = kA2/2.

Ouff!Ā Glad thatĀ worked out: the total energy is, indeed, proportional to the squareĀ of theĀ amplitude and the constant of proportionality is equal to k/2. [You should now wonder why we do not have m in this formula but, if you’d think about it, you can answer your own question: the amplitude will depend on the mass (bigger mass, smaller amplitude, and vice versa), so it’s actually in the formula already.]

The point to note is that this Hamiltonian function H = T + V is just a constant, not only for this particular case (an oscillation without damping), but in all cases where H represents the total energy of a (closed) system.

OK. That’s clear enough. How does our Lagrangian look like? That’s notĀ a constant obviously. Just so you can visualize things, I’ve drawnĀ the graph below:

1. The red curve represents kinetic energy (T) as a function of the displacement x: T is zero at the turning points, and reaches a maximum at the x = 0 point.
2. The blue curve is potential energy (V): unlike T, V reaches a maximum at the turning points, and isĀ zero at the x = 0 point. In short, it’s the mirror image of the red curve.
3. The Lagrangian is the green graph: L = T ā V. Hence, L reaches a minimum at the turning points, and a maximum at the x = 0 point.

While that green function would make an economist think of some Lagrangian optimization problem, it’s worth noting we’re notĀ doing any such thing here: we’re not interested in stationary points. We just want the equation(s) of motion. [I just thought that would be worth stating, in light of my own background and confusion in regard to it all. :-)]

OK. Now that we have an idea of whatĀ the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian functions are (it’s probably worth noting also that we do not have a ‘Newtonian function’ of some sort), let us now show how these ‘functions’ are used to solve the problem. What problem? Well… We need to find some equation for the motion, remember? [I find that, in physics, I often have to remind myself of what the problem actually is. Do you feel the same? š ] So let’s go for it.

II. Lagrangian mechanics

As this post should not turn into a chapter of some math book, I’ll just describe the how, i.e. I’ll just list the steps one should take to model and then solve the problem, and illustrate how it goes for the oscillator above. Hence, I will notĀ try to explain whyĀ this approach gives the correct answer (i.e. the equation(s) of motion). So if you want to know why rather than how, then just check it out on the Web: there’s plenty of nice stuff on math out there.

The steps that are involved in the Lagrangian approach are the following:

1. Compute (i.e. write down) the Lagrangian function L = TĀ ā V. Hmm? How do we do that? There’s more than one way to express T and V, isn’t it? Right you are! So let me clarify: in the Lagrangian approach, we should express T as a function of velocity (v) and V as a function of position (x), so your Lagrangian should be L = L(x, v). Indeed, if you don’t pick the right variables, you’ll get nowhere. So, in our example, we have L =Ā mv2/2Ā āĀ kx2/2.
2. Compute the partial derivativesĀ āL/āxĀ and āL/āv. So… Well… OK. Got it. Now that we’ve written L using the right variables, that’s a piece of cake. In our example, we have:Ā āL/āx = ā kx and āL/āv = mv.Ā Please note how we treat x and v as independent variables here. It’s obvious from the use of the symbol for partial derivatives:Ā ā. So we’re not taking any total differential here or so.Ā [This is an important point, so I’d rather mention it.]
3. Write downĀ (‘compute’ sounds awkward, doesn’t it?) Lagrange’s equation: d(āL/āv)/dt =Ā āL/āx.Ā […] Yep. That’s it. Why?Ā Well… I told you I wouldn’t tell you why. I am just showing the how here. This is Lagrange’s equation and so you should take it for granted and get on with it. šĀ In our example: d(āL/āv)/dt = d(mv)/dt = āk(dx/dt) = āL/āx = ā kx. We can also write this as m(dv/dt) = m(d2x/dt2) = ākx.Ā  Ā Ā Ā
4. Finally, solve the resulting differential equation. […]Ā ?!Ā Well… Yes. […] Of course, we’ve done that already. It’s the same differential equation as the one we found in our ‘Newtonian approach’, i.e. the equation we found by combining Hooke’s and Newton’s laws. So the general solution is x(t) = Acos(Ļt +Ā Ī±), as we already noted above.

So, yes, we’re solving the same differential equation here. So you’ll wonder what’s the difference then between Newtonian and Lagrangian mechanics? Yes, you’re right: we’re indeed solving the same second-order differential equation here. Exactly. Fortunately, I’d say, because we don’t want any other equation(s) of motion because we’re talking the same system. The point is: we got that differential equation using an entirely different procedure, which I actually didn’t explain at all: I just said to compute this and then that and… ā Surprise, surprise! ā we got the same differential equation in the end. šĀ So, yes, the Newtonian and Lagrangian approach to modeling a dynamic system yield the same equations, but the Lagrangian method is much more (very much more, I should say) convenient when we’re dealing with lots of moving bits and if there’s more directions (i.e. degrees of freedom) in which they can move.

In short, Lagrange could solve a problem more rapidly than Newton with his modeling approach and so that’s why his approach won out. š In fact, you’ll usually see the spatial variables noted asĀ qj. In this notation, j = 1, 2,… n, and n is the number of degrees of freedom, i.e. the directions in which the various particles can move. And then, of course, you’ll usually see a second subscript i = 1, 2,… m to keep track of everyĀ qjĀ for each and every particle in the system, so we’ll have nĆm qij‘s in our model and so, yes, good to stick to Lagrange in that case.

OK. You get that, I assume. Let’s move on to Hamiltonian mechanics now.

III. Hamiltonian mechanics

The steps here are the following. [Again, I am just explaining the how, not the why. You can find mathematical proofs of why this works in handbooks or, better still, on the Web.]

1. The first step is very similar as the one above. In fact, it’s exactly the same:Ā write T and VĀ as a function of velocity (v) and position (x) respectively and construct the Lagrangian.Ā So, once again, we have L = L(x, v). In our example: L(x, v) =Ā mv2/2Ā āĀ kx2/2.
2. The second step, however, is different. Here, the theory becomes more abstract, as the Hamiltonian approach does not only keep track of the positionĀ but also of theĀ momentumĀ of the particles in a system. Position (x) and momentum (p) are so-calledĀ canonical variables in Hamiltonian mechanics, and the relation with Lagrangian mechanics is the following: p = āL/āv. Huh?Ā Yeah. Again, don’t worry about the why. Just check it for our example: ā(mv2/2Ā āĀ kx2/2)/āv = 2mv/2 = mv. So, yes, it seems to work. Please note, once again, how we treat x and v as independent variables here, as is evident from the use of the symbol for partialĀ derivatives. Let me get back to the lesson, however. The second step is: calculate the conjugate variables. In more familiar wording: compute the momenta.
3. The third step is: write down (or ‘build’ as you’ll see it, but I find that wording strange too) the Hamiltonian function H = T + V. We’ve got the same problem here as the one I mentioned with the Lagrangian: there’s more than one way to express T and V. Hence, we need some more guidance. Right you are! When writing your Hamiltonian, you need to make sureĀ you express the kinetic energy as a function of the conjugate variable, i.e. as a function of momentum, rather than velocity. So we have H = H(x, p), not H = H(x, v)! In our example, we have H = T + V =Ā p2/2m + kx2/2.
4. Finally, write and solve the following set of equations: (I)Ā āH/āp = dx/dt and (II) āāH/āx = dp/dt. [Note the minus sign in the second equation.]Ā In our example: (I) p/m = dx/dt and (II) ākx = dp/dt. The first equation is actually nothing but the definition of p: p = mv, and the second equation is just Hooke’s law: F = ākx. However, from a formal-mathematical point of view, we have twoĀ first-order differential equations here (as opposed to oneĀ second-order equation when using the Lagrangian approach), which should be solved simultaneously in order to find position and momentum as a function of time, i.e. x(t) and p(t). The end result should be the same:Ā x(t) = Acos(Ļt +Ā Ī±) and p(t) = … Well… I’ll let you solve this: time to brush up your knowledge about differential equations. š

You’ll say: what the heck? Why are you making things so complicated?Ā Indeed, what am I doing here? Am I making things needlessly complicated?

The answer is the usual one: yes, and no. Yes. If we’d want to do stuff in the classical world only, the answer seems to be: yes!Ā In that case, the Lagrangian approach will do and may actually seem much easier, because we don’t have a setĀ of equations to solve. And why would we need to keep track of p(t)? We’re only interested in the equation(s) of motion, aren’t we? Well… That’s why the answer to your question is also: no! In classical mechanics, we’re usually only interested in position, but in quantum mechanics that concept of conjugate variables (like x and p indeed) becomes much more important, and we will want to find the equations for both. So… Yes. That means a set of differential equations (one for each variable (x and p) in the example above) rather than just one. In short, the realĀ answer to your question in regard to the complexity of the Hamiltonian modeling approach is the following: because the more abstractĀ Hamiltonian approach to mechanics is very similar to the mathematics used in quantum mechanics, we will want to study it, because a good understanding ofĀ Hamiltonian mechanics will help us to understand the math involved in quantum mechanics. And so that’sĀ the reason why physicists prefer it to the Lagrangian approach.

[…] Really?Ā […] Well… At least that’s what I know about it from googling stuff here and there. Of course, another reason for physicists to prefer the Hamiltonian approach may well that they think social science (like economics) isn’t real science. Hence, we – social scientists – would surely expect them to develop approaches that are much more intricate and abstract than the ones that are being used by us, wouldn’t we?

[…] And then I am sure some of it is alsoĀ related to the Anglo-French thing.Ā š

Post scriptum 1Ā (dated 21 March 2016): I hate to write about stuff and just explain theĀ howārather than the why.Ā However, in this case, theĀ whyĀ is really rather complicated. The math behind is referred to asĀ calculus of variationsĀ ā which is a rather complicated branch of mathematics āĀ but the physical principle behind is the Principle of Least Action. Just click the link, and you’ll see how the Master used to explain stuff like this. It’s an easy and difficult piece at the same time. Near the end, however, it becomes pretty complicated, as he applies the theory to quantum mechanics, indeed. In any case, I’ll let you judge for yourself. š

Post scriptum 2 (dated 13 September 2017): I started a blog on the ExercisesĀ on Feynman’s Lectures, and the posts on the exercises on Chapter 4 have a lot more detail, and basically give you all the math you’ll ever want on this. Just click the link. However, let me warn you: the math isĀ notĀ easy.Ā Not at all, really.