Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Diffusion Model For The Schrodinger Equation L: Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 08903
A Diffusion Model For The Schrodinger Equation L: Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 08903
L. BEsst>
A diffusion process has been formulated to have a mass conservation equation and a
momentum conservation equation that together are equivalent to the Schrodinger equation of
quantum mechanics. It is suggested that this diffusion process be used as a physical model
to help describe the microphysical processes that underlie the Schrodinger equation.
§ I. Introduction
At least among certain physicists, a desired goal has always been to· find a
physical model**> that can provide a description of the microphysical processes
associated with quantum mechanics. An early example of this type of effort is
the work of Madelung. 1> A more recent example is provided by Bohm. 2> How-
ever, to date, no model has been devised that can accurately be described by the
Schri:idinger equation and not be quite artificial physically. In the work to be
reported here such a model may perhaps have been realized. The characteristic
feature of this model is a special type of diffusion process. It is to be hoped
that, at the very least this diffusion model will prove to be of value as a con-
ceptual aid when dealing with quantum mechanical phenomena.
Actually, the association of diffusion processes with the Schri:idinger equation
is nothing new. A number of investigators 3>-B> have already noted a formal mathe-
matical resemblance existing between the equations governing diffusion processes
and the Schri:idinger equation for a single particle in a force field. However, the
diffusion processes treated by most of these investigators 3>-s> cannot be relevant
here. This is because these diffusion processes involve an imaginary diffusion
constant, D, and therefore are not physically realizable (at least in the realm of
classical physics). Hence these diffusion equations can serve as mathematical
models only.
*l Paper of the Journal S=ries, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers, the State
University of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Sciences, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
t> Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers, The State University, New Brunswick, New
Jersey.
**> The term physical model is used here to mean those models employing the paraphernalia
of classical physics that can directly represent the physical processes they describe even though they
may be simplifications. An example is the use of a group of randomly moving elastic spheres in
the kinetic theory of gases .to represent the essential. processes there. Other types of models using
an indirect symbolic type of representation are to be called. mathematical models.
1890 L. Bess
The other investig ators 7h 8> treated diffusio n process es with real diffusio
n con-
stants but present difficult ies in connect ion with their physica l viability
.*> The
work of one of these, Kersha w, 8> is of particul ar interest here since
it is to serve
as the starting point of the present treatme nt. In the followin g sections
, Kersha w's
treatme nt is to be analyze d in detail and will be shown to contain
a serious flaw,
even though his results were obtaine d in a very elegant manner ·
(1)
(2)
(3)
The propaga tion kernel E between the event points (x"'- ~k• t) and (xk,
t + Jt)
that is to be used here is the same as the one employ ed by Kersha
w and has
the form
E(xk, t+Jtlx.~:-e:.t, t)
*l Regardin g the work of Weizel, the author feels that, although this work
is a worth while
attempt, the treatmen t is unsatisfa ctory for several reasons. One of these
is that he seems to have
confused the roles of the "drift" velocity and the "transpo rt" velocity
(the terms are to be defined
below). Another reason will be pointed out in § 5.
**l To ensure that this point is not missed, it is now stated that the treatmen
t here was devised
to complete ly fit into the methodol ogy develope d by. Gibbs and· Boltzman
n for statistical mechanic s.
Specifically, use is made of a point moving in a six dimensio nal phase
space to represent the change
of state of a particle with time. Moreove r, the concept of the ensemble
of particles is used in the
manner employed in statistical mechanic s (for example, see R. B. Lindsay,
Introduct ion to Physical
Statistics (]. Wiley and Sons, New York, 1941), pp. 108""-'119).
A Diffusion Model for the Schrodinger Equation 1891
where
Moreover, quasi-Huygens propagation relations for the mass density and mo-
mentum density are formulated just as was done by Kershaw. These take the
form
*> The mass and the momentum conservation equations in Kershaw's treatment are his Eqs. (11)
and (15). As is seen, Kershaw's Eq. (11) is identical to Eq. (7) of the text. Kershaw's Eq. (15), the
momentum conservation equation, is (using the present notation):
..
8< V~c+ Vi (8i V~c) =[~ ]+D[ (1/ p) (8~i(PV~c))- (V~c/ p) (8~io)].
**> Tensor notation is used here throughout, where the repetition of an index in a term means
summation on that index. Moreover,
8i=8/8xi; 8~1 =(8i8J); and 8"=8/8t.
1892 L. Bess
are contribu tions from what might be called quantum mechani cal (or QM) "forces"
,
which are now to be represen ted by the most general mathema tical expressio
n
that can contribu te to the :first order in Jt. Thus, from the foregoin g considera
-
tions the explicit form for j vk is assumed to be
JVk(xk, t+ Jtjxk-g:k , t) = [Fk/m]J t+ akJt
(8b)
The quantitie s Fk, ak, 13tk and 'i'iik are all functions of xk- g:k and t while
the
quantitie s Fk, ak, {3;k and rt 1k are functions of xk and t. Moreove r, riik ;,_ r iik·
Upon performi ng the Taylors expansio n on the factors containin g Jt and g:,
in Eq. (6), then performi ng the indicated integrati ons, and ,:finally retaining
only
those terms that are of the :first order in Jt, it IS shown in Appendi x A that
the
followin g different ial equation results:
¢= VP exp(iS/h ), (lOa)
and
(lOb)
The substitut ion of Eq. (lOa) is now made in Schrodin ger's equation , which
111 the present Jtotation is
(11)
where
A Diffusion Model for the Schrodinger Equation 1893
The real terms and the imaginary terms are collected together and each
group set equal to zero, thus making up two real equations. The equation result-
ing from the imaginary group can be shown to be identical with Eq. (7) above.
If the equation resulting from the real group is operated on by the space partial
derivative ak and the result is combined with Eq. (7), it can be shown7> that
the following relation is obtained:
Equations (7) and (13) are the real equation set associated with the Schrodinger
equation.
In comparing the diffusion equation set with the Schrodinger set, differences
are observed only on the r.h.s. of Eqs. (9) and (13). The two equation sets
become identical if
pak + pVd3ik- 2D (aip) ({3ik) + 2Dp Crm- ai{3ik)
= -2ai[Dp(aiCk)]. (14)
With the derivation of Eq. (14), the mam objective of this section has been
attained.*> Before proceeding, it is of interest to clear up a point connected with
the statement that the diffusion equation set and the Schrodinger equation are
equivalent. As was seen, comparison was actually made with the equation set,
Eqs. (7) and (13), not the Schrodinger equation itself. Solving Eq. (7) and (13)
will provide the functions p and Vk (or Ck) not ¢, the actual solution of the
Schrodinger equation. To obtain ¢, Eqs. (10) must be invoked. As can be seen
from Eq; (lOb), the function S is not uniquely determined by Ck. Hence, strictly
speaking, the diffusion equations cannot be equivalent to the Schrodinger equa-
tion. They can only be consistent with it. However, what in effect amounts to
an equivalence can be made if the following relation**> is postulated as a sup-
*l It is interesting to note that Kershaw was not able to derive the more general time-dependent
Schrodinger equation but only the time-independent equation. The reason for this was his failure
to include the QM "forces", as is readily apparent from Eqs. (9) and (14).
**> Where
1894 L. Bess
(15)
where E is the energy of the particle and P( = mv) is its moment
um. The va-
lidity of Eq. (15) is actually a very reasona ble postulat e since, in
the usual quan-
tum mechan ical treatme nt, it is derived from the Schrodi nger equation
· to show
(16)
In the usual treatme nt of element ary quantum mechan ics, Eq. (16)
is derived from
the Schrodi nger equatio n again to show an agreem ent with classica
l mechan ics.
In the treatme nt adopted here, the mathem atical form of the first
postulat e (to
be called Postula te I hereafte r) is to be differen t from Eq. (16).
To present
this, it is necessa ry to define the quantiti es .d Vk and Qk. These are
The quantity Qk of Eq. (17b) represents the QM "force" acting on the pro ba-
bility fluid averaged at the event point (xk, t). Postulate I may now be ,written
entirely in terms of Qk as
(18)
Physically speaking, Eq. (18) states that the total ensemble average of the QM
(19b)
e
It is obvious from Eqs. (19) that (t) is the analog of the average gas tempera-
ture in the kinetic theory of gases. Postulate II states that there exists a value
@M SUCh that
@(t)<eM for all t. (20)
Equation (20) states, in essence, that the effective average temperature of the
diffusion process must always be finite. Postulate II is obviously necessary since
if it were violated the physical model of a given process would possess an infinite
kinetic energy and therefore could never be implemented.
It can readily, be shown that Kershaw's process satisfies Postulate I. It is
now to be shown, however, that it does not satisfy Postulate II. The reason for
performing this analysis is not only to provide a better understanding of Kershaw's
very interesting approach but also to have a working example from which the
requirements associated with Postulate II can be developed in a more explicit
mathematical form.
Kershaw does not actually give the detailed physical properties of the dif-
fusion process on which his treatment is based. The only properties he mentions
are that the diffusion coefficient D is a constant and that .JVk = [Fk/ m] At. To
be able to calculate the velocity dispersion U 2 associated with Kershaw's treat-
ment, it is necessary to investigate the details of the erratic diffusion motion of
a typical particle in the ensemble. In doing this, it is assumed, for simplicity,
that the typical particle is being acted on by random time sequence of delta func-
tion impulsive forces. This assumption has been used before and is actually not
very restrictive since by making the time interval r between successive impulses
1896 L. Bess
small enough, any arbitrarily shaped path in real space can be approximate d with
any desired accuracy. Stated more explicitly, the rapidly fluctuating force A" (t)
acting on the typical particle and causing it to undergo diffusion is assumed to
have a form given by
s yf,.(y)dy= O, (22b)
In Eqs. (22) both the velocity dispersion (u 2) 1 and the average time interval (r)
1
are functions of t and z"(t) (where z"(t) is the position of the particle at time
t).
Another set of statistical properties that must be stipulated is that the random
variable (u")" is completely uncorrelated with any other random variable (ut) 1,
if either V=/=1-! or i=/=k. Similarly, (Jr).= ('r)v- (r)1 is entirely uncorrelated with
(Jr)" if v=l= f.!.
Brownian motion is actually a special type of diffusion process that results
when the diffusing particle is acted on by the random sequence of impulses de-
scribed by Eqs. (22) and by a viscosity force of the form - {3v". It is charac-
terized by the property that the phase point describing the state of the particle
moves in a random :flight motion9l in three-dimen sional velocity space (which is
a sub-space of the six dimensional phase space). The existence of a viscosity
force is necessary for this diffusion process to be physically viable since it acts
as a kind of "force field" in velocity space restricting the position of the phase
point to the region of the origin with the result that (u 2) 1 always remains finite.
Without the viscosity force, the phase point would execute a free random flight
A Diffusion Model for the Schrodinger Equation 1897
motion in velocity space and it can be shown that for such a process, <u 2) 1 would
increase linearly with t and become infinite as t becomes infinite. 9l
In Kershaw's diffusion process there can be no viscosity force or the rela-
tion .JVk= [Fk/m].Jt is no longer valid. (It would be replaced by Langevins
equation.) If Eq. (22a) is used for (lk)., the velocity dispersion U 2 would have
the component <u 2)f> and this would now increase without limit as mentioned
(23)
Upon studying Eq. (23), it is seen that the diffusion process here is characterized
by having the phase point remain a distance, [ (ui). (u£).JI 2 from the origin in
three dimensional velocity space. Hence, for this process, <u 2) 1 remains finite.
Moreover, it is apparent that the phase point moves in a free random walk in
real space with ,the mean free path, *l O.k)u = ( vk). (r) •.
Even though the component <u 2) 1 remains finite when Kershaw's diffusion
process is associated with the relation (23)' the velocity dispersion U 2 still will
become infinite as t approaches infinity. This can be seen from the following
propagation relation which is derived in Appendix B:
p (xk, t + .Jt) U 2 (xk, t + .Jt)
s
+ d 3~p(xk-~k' t)E(xk, t+ .Jtlxk-~k' t).
X L,:; [Vi(xk-~k' t)- Vi(xk, t+.Jt) +.:1Vi(xk, t+.Jtlxk-~k, t)] 2 •
i'
(24)
In Eq. (24) ~U 2 (xk, t + .Jtlxk- ~k' t) is the average increment to the intrinsic
dispersion generated by the _fluctuating force Ax(t) acting on an ensemble particle
as it goes from the event point (xk-~k,t) to the point (xk,t+.Jt). For a dif-
fusion process associated with Eq. (23), ~U 2 =3{[<u 2 ) 1]x,t+Jt- [<u 2 ) 1]x-~,,} (where
[ <u 2) 1 ]x,t is <u 2) 1 evaluated at the space point xk and time t).
As can be seen from Eq. (19b), to obtain an expression for (H) (t), both sides
*> To avoid possible confusion, it should be stated that neither Kershaw's diffusion process nor
the diffusion process of § 4 is Brownian motion. This is obvious since neither process includes a
viscosity force and both diffusion processes are characterized by a random flight motion in real space
rather than in velocity space. (Both real and velocity spaces are three dimensional sub-spaces of the
six dimensional phase space.) It is also to be noted that Kershaw's propagation kernel, B, (given
in Eq. (14)), is rigorously accurate only for diffusion processes where the phase point performs a
random flight in real space.
1898 L. Bess
of Eq. (24) must first be integrated over x space. The resulting x and ~ inte-
grals can be evaluated to the first order in Lit by using various strategies. In
some cases, the x and ~ .integrals can be separated if the variable, xk, is
changed to 3\ = xk- ~k· Vi is expanded in a Taylors series, and Eq. (8) is used
to evaluate JV£. All of the ~ integrals and all but one of the x integrals can
readily be performed. The resulting equation is theri:
e
From Eq. (25) it is seen that, in _general, (t) becomes infinite as t becomes
infinite (since @0 (t) is always finite and.[!9(t)- !9 0 (t)] tends toward infinity).
This behavior arises from the variation of Vk with xk, which causes the integral
on the r.h.s. of Eq. (25) to always have a positive value (if {1£ 1 = 0 as in Kershaw's
case). Hence, even with the finite (u 2) 1 of Eq. (23), Kershaw's diffusion process
violates Postulate II. It can therefore be
said that while Kershaw's derivl:!-tion
is perfectly correct in a m~thematical sense, the diffusion process he depicts can-
not be used as a physical model. Finally, it is apparent from Eq. (25) that a
diffusion process with no viscosity forces can satisfy Postulate II only if it has
Q~ "forces" with a coefficient, {1ik• whose value is (ai Vk).
The obj•ective of this section is to derive the specific form of the QM "forces"
which can make the diffusion equations equivalent to the Schrodinger equation.
In pragmatic terms, this means deriving specific forms of the coefficients, ak, {1ik
and f£Jk in Eq. (8) that can satisfy Eq. (14). As a first step in the derivation,
some consideratio n, however brief, must be given the problem of the physical
origin of the so-called QM "forces". Essentially the same problem has already
been considered by other investigators 10 )~ 12 ) who provide rather similar answers.
It ~s proposed by them that the QM "forces" a'rise· by the action of the "vacuum"
on any given ensemble particle. This type of solution is to be adopted here also
except that it is further postulated that th.e same forces (i.e., those of Eq. (21))
that give rise to the diffusion action also give rise to the QM "forces".
In order to be able to implement the forgoing ideas, it is found necessary
to use a new fluctuating force Ak (t) which is somewhat different from the fluc-
tuating force Ak (t) of Eq. (21). Ak (t) must now be determined from the fol-
lowing relation (instead of Eq, (21)):
(27a)
The vector quantity Yk (z.) in Eq. (27a) denotes the vector field Yk (xk, t) when
where (iJYk/ot)._1= (a~Yk) + (aiYk) (vi) •. r, (aiYk) and (iJ~Yk) are evaluated at
t= (t).- 1 and xk.= zk ( (t)._ 1) . Moreover, it is again assumed that the diffusion
constant D(=iU12<r)1 ) does not vary with xk and t and that <r),~Jt.
In comparing (lk). of Eq. (23) with (lk). of Eq. (27a), it is seen that they
are essentially of the same form except that the impulse does not have a zero
ensemble average at a given point but instead has the value m [Yk (z.) - Yk (z.- 1) ] .
Moreover, it is obvious from Eq. (27b) that the QM "forces" arise entirely from
the Yk field, since whatever momentum change the impulse m (uk). produces it is
cancelled out a short time, (r)., later. It is only the third impulse (oYk/ot).-1(r).~1
that produces a lasting change in momentum.
From Eq. (26) and from what has just been said about the Yk field, it would
follow that the total velocity increment JVk(xk+~\, t+Jtlxk> t) can be related
to Yk in the following way:
"~ ( -
JVk=m I.; iJYk)
- (r)., (28a)
•=.um ot •
where t< (t)" < (t)"+ 1 and IJ.M is the maximum fJ. while IJ.m is the minimum. Moreo-
ver,- it follows from the definition of JVk that the sum on the r.h.s. of Eq. (28a)
must be taken over the path of only those ensemble particles that have the same
initial event point (xk, t) and the same final event point (xk + ~k' t +.:It).
For the relationship of Eq. (28a) to be valid, it is necessary that the sum
on the r.h.s. be independent of the path of the particle and hence depend only
on the initial and final event points. That this is so follows from the considera-
tion that JVk is obviously a quantity obtained by averaging over the entire en-
semble while the sum in Eq. (28a) relates to a single ensemble particle. How-
ever, since only those particles need be considered that have the same initial and
final event points and since it is assumed . that the sum is independent of the
particle path, it is obvious that the sum will be the same for any particle chosen
and hence will be the same as the ensemble average. Thus, Eq. (28a} is then
a consistent relation in that both sides of Eq. (28a) are functions only of ~k and
Jt (and, of course, of xk and t).
Just as in the case of Eqs. (27a) and (27b), Eq. (28a) has an alternative
1900 L. Bess
form which IS
(28b)
JJ=ftm
The sum m Eq. (28b) can now be evaluated and the result IS
(32)
At this point, a general mathemat ical propositio n which is necessary for the
present treatment is to be briefly stated. First, assume that Gk (xk> t) and Hk (xk, t)
are two vector fields and that
(34)
Jcvk+- ttWk+)p+d 3x- J (Vk- ttWk)pd 3x= (~) JFkpd 3x. (35)
(36)
If the proposition of Eqs. (33) Is now applied to Eq. (36), a relation -for
Qx develops which has the form
d* 2
Qk=m-[Yk- Vk+ ttW.J + Wi(airk) +D(aiirk)• (37)
d*t
The expression for Qk as given by Eq. (37) is to be compared with the one
given by Eq. (32). As a trial choice, rk, is assumed to have the value so that
(8£k = (aJ'k). It is seen that Eqs. (32) and (37) become identical if
(38)
So far, not only the arbitrary constant tt but also the function Yk Is com-
pletely undetermined. To find Yk it is first noted (from Eq. (3)) that Vk=<vk)E
(where the symbol < )E denotes the ensemble average at a given point). Moreo-
ver, from the properties of a diffusion process as given by Eqs. (26) and (27a),
it follows that here vk=uk+Yk. Since <uk)E=O, it is apparent that Yk= Vk-ak.
(The arbitrary constant ak is introduced here because Yk + ak could be substituted
for Yk in Eq. (27a) without affecting any of the essential results.) The relation
between yk and vk can also be stated as follows:
(39)
smce /3ik = aiYk (Eq. (31)), one important result immediately anses from this
1902 L. Bess
- d*W
Q~c = 11m _ _1c + w, (a, V~c) + D (a~, V~c). (41a)
d*t
Moreov er, the explicit form of d*W~/d*t is
(41b)
where
There now remains the task of determi ning the value of the arbitrar
y con-
stant /1. in Eq. (41a). To do this, an extra restriCt ion on the form
of Q~c is
invoked which arises when Eq~ (34) is studied for a possible physica
l interpre ta-
tion. One alternat ive here is to interpre t the q1;1antity mf Y~cpd 8x
as a sort of
total potentia l moment um of the "vacuu m". A natural extensio n
of this is to
assume the existanc e of the function mA (x~c, t) which can be interpre
ted as a
potentia l energy associat ed with the "vacuum"~ mf Apd8x would thus
be the total
"vacuu m" potentia l energy at time t. In analogy to the moment um
relation of
Eq. (34), the energy relation is then
(42)
where
d*A
- - B.A+ V,(a,A) +D(a~,A).-
d*t
Equatio n ( 42) results from an analysis very similar to one conduct ed
in Append ix
C in associat ion with Eqs. (33) . Since the pote~tial energy field
is closely con-
nected with the moment um field mY,., it is related to the total "force"
R~c ( =F~c
+ Qk) acting on the particle . This relation can be obtaine d from Eq. ( 42) where
the quantity d* A/d*t is interpre ted as the intrinsi c rate of change
of the energy
field plus the rate of work done on the ensemb le by the "vacuu m"
at a given
A Diffusion Model for the Schrodinger Equation 1903
point. From its primary definition, *l the rate of work can be shown to be [ R; IT;
+ D (a;R;)]. Hence it follows from Eq. ( 42) that
(43)
Since it has already been assumed that F K = -a K(f), where (f) IS a scalar po-
tential function, Eq. ( 43) leads to the result that
Equation ( 44) thus sets a restriction on the form of Qk in that it must be the
gradient of a scalar. It is this condition that is to determine the value of the
arbitrary constant fl.. From Eqs. ( 41a) and ( 41b) it is readily seen that the con-
dition of Eq-. ( 44) can only be satisfied if fl.= 1. For this value of 11, Qk = Qk,
and Eq. ( 40) takes the form
(45)
Upon adopting the values fl.= 1; a;Yk = 0; vk; and arYk =Or vk; it IS apparent
that (with the aid of Eqs. (41b) and (45)) Eq. (38) is satisfied. Hence, the
· initial trial assumption that a;Tk = aiYk was justified.
Since the values of fl. and Yk have been completely determined, it is seen
(Eq. (31)) that the values of the coefficients ak, (3;k and riJk are also determined.
These can now be substituted in Eq. (14) to see they are able to satisfy it. If
they do, then the diffusion process equations developed here can be considered
equivalent to the Schrodinger equation and the objective of the present work has
been attained. This is indeed found to be so and can readily be verified if the
following two alterations in expression form are noted:
a;[Dp(a;Ck)] =a;[Dp(a; Vk)]- (p/2m)Qk, (46a)
ak=a" Vk-Fk/m= Qk/m- F;(a; Vk) -D(a~; Vk). (46b)
*l The result here follows from the evaluation of the primary expression for the mean work
done on the ensemble by the "vacuum" at a point in space. In the time interval At this is f[R;e-t]sdse-.
Incidently, the specific form of the intrinsic change in field energy is J CilrA) pd 3x.
1904 L. Bess
same form but twice the value of the QM "force" proposed by Bohm. 2l Another
point of interest here is that the form of Qk (as a function of p) is derived
in the present treatment, but in Bohm's treatment the form of the QM "force"
had to be assumed as an extra condition.
Noting that the diffusion constant D=i<u 2) 1 <r)1 , it is seen that the proposed
interaction mechanism leads to an important result which had to be assumed as
an extra condition in all other diffusion process treatments. This is that D= (b/3)
X (h/m), which states that D is a constant depending only on two physical
parameters (i.e., on h and m).
It is apparent that the interaction process just described accounts for the
components m (uk). and - m (uk).- 1 of the impulse (lk), in Eq. (27a) (since
corresponding to the component m (uk), in the impulse (lk), there is an equal
and opposite impulse component - m (uk), in (lk),+l). It is to be noted that no
mention was made of the components mYk (z,) and mYk (z,_ 1) . This is felt to
be justified in an initial rough analysis such as was conducted above. The main
reason for this is that the components m (uk). and m (uk),_ 1 are completely uncor-
related and hence it is reasonable to account for them by interactions with two
different photons. The components mYk (z,) and mYk (z,_ 1) , on the other hand,
are practically completely correlated and, since they occur at the same time,
nearly always cancel each other out. The residue m (iJYk/iJt),_ 1 (r),_ 1 is- much
smaller than mYk (z.) and mYk (z,- 1) and even smaller than m (uk), and m (uk\- 1•
Hence, to a first approximation, the effects of the term m (?JYkj(Jt). (r), can be
neglected in describing momentum changes associated with the calculation of the
diffusion constant D and there is no need to account for the effects of the Yk
field by any photon interaction model.
It is important to note, however, that the inclusion of the impulse component
m (iJYk/iJt), (r), in (lk), of Eq. (27b) is vitally necessary if a physically viable
diffusion process is to be devised that can be governed by the Schrodinger equa-
tion in a rigorously accurate manner. As is seen, (iJYk/iJt). must be dependent
on the instantaneous particle velocity as well as its position. Furthermore, one
of the most important results of the present work is to show that the desired
1906 L. Bess
type of diffusion process cannot be obtained by merely g1vmg the. value, h/2m
to the diffusion constant D and assuming that the net force at .any point is the
classical force Fk as has been attempted. 7 ),B) It is also necessary that the net
force includes the component Qk which is strictly of quantum mechanical origin
(and arises here from the impulse component m (fJYk/fJt).).
Some comments on a different topic, which could lead to. some new physical
:as a consequence of the various laws governing the particle motion. The details
of the two treatments, however, are quite different.
In conclusion, it is suggested that the demonstration that a physical model
can exist for the Schrodinger equation could be a result of more than pedagogical
interest. The physical model could be of value in primary research just as it
has been in classical physics where it· worked hand in hand with mathematical
Appendix A
The object of this appendix is to derive Eq. (9) in the text from Eqs. (6)
and (8). In order to evaluate the integral of Eq. (6), the various factors are -
expanded in a Taylors series in a manner shown by the following relations:
(Al)
and a similar relation for Vk (xk, t +Lit) obtained by substituting Vk for p in Eq.
(Al):
(A2)
and a similar relation for Vk (xk- ~\, t) obtained by substituting Vk for p in Eq.
(A2):
where
N(~) = [ 4nD]- 312 exp[- (~i~J / ( 4DL1t)]. (A3)
In the above equations, the various factors were expanded to include only
those terms that could contribute to the integral of Eq. (6) to the first order in
jt, If Eqs. (Al), (A2), (A3) and (8) are substituted in Eq. (6), the integral
can readily be evaluated by straight forward algebraic manipulation and by mak-
ing use of the following relations:
and
(A4)
When the operatio ns indicate d above have been carried out, it is noted
the
terms not having .dt as a factor cancel out. If, then, only those terms
with a
.dt of the first order are retained , the result readily become s convert
ed into Eq.
(9) of the text.
Appen dix B
By adding and subtrac ting fa(~) [V(~)]'d~ to the r.h.s. of Eq. (B3), this rela-
tion can be convert ed to
((JV)' )= s J
a(~)JV 2 (~)d~+ a(~)[V(~) -<V)] 2d~ (B5)
'
A Diffusion Model for the Schrodinger Equation 1909
and
(B6)
In order to be able to generalize Eq. (B5) in the same manner that was used
with Eq. (B1), it is necessary to find correspondences to the dispersion quantities,
AP(~) and <CAVY). Using V(~) and <V) as analogies, the choice obviously
and
(B7)
When the correspondences given by relation sets, (B6) and (B7), are used
m Eq. (B5), the result is Eq. (24) of the text.
Appendix C
In this appendix, Eq. (33b) of the text is to be derived from Eq. (33a).
When Eq. (5) is used in Eq. (33a) one of the terms on the l.h.s. can become:
(C1)
A change of variables is now to be introduced such that xk = xk- ~k Moreo-
ver, d 3x=d 3x, 'since it can be shown that the Jacobian J(x/x) = 1. Hence Eq.
(C1) can be rewritten (to the first order in At):
+ mDAt J(a7;Hk) pd 8x J- m J
Hkpd 8x
=At SGkpd x
8 (C3)
1910 L. Bess
In Eq. (C3), the "bar" has been dropped from Xx smce it IS a variable of in-
tegratio n. Eq. (C3) now simplifi es to the form
where
(C5) -
where
References
1) E. Madelung , Z. Phys. 40 (1926), 332.
2) D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 85 (19S2), 1966.
3) J. Meladier , Compt. rend. hebdom. B270 (1931), 193.
4) R. Furth, Z. Phys. 81 (1933), 143.
5) I. Fenyes, Z. Phys. 132 (1952), 81.
6) G. G. Comisar, Phys. Rev. 138 (1965), B1332.
7) W. Weizel, Z. Phys. 134 (1953), 264.
8) D. Kershaw , Phys. Rev. 136 (1964), B.1850.
9) S. Chandras ekhar, Rev. Mod. Phys. 15 (1943), 2--..44.
10) L. de la Pena-Aue rbach and L. S .. Garcia-C olin,]. Math. Phys. 9 (1968),
916.
11) T. H. Boyer, Phys. Rev. 182 (1969), 1374.
'
12) M. Surdin, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 4 (1971), 117.
13) L. I. Schiff, Quantum Mechanic s (McGraw -Hill Book Co., New York,
1949), pp.189--..198.
14) A. Lande, Am. J. Phys. 29 (1961), 503.