sign in sign up
<<
Home , Quantum potential, Uncertainty principle, Zitterbewegung

arXiv:2106.05827v5 [quant-ph] 1 Jul 2021 rah aebe usindb ayrsaces[-4.Ho [6-14]. the researchers of many compatibility relativi the by quant coherent namely questioned a problems, specific of been a existence have of very proach, the introduction even the or with difficulties non-relativis recovered the of is interpretation minism Broglie-Bohm de the In Introduction 1 eiu iiaino h urn oma eaiitcthe relativistic non-r bohmian and current relativistic the the the of as between limitation unsatisfactory potential is serious theory the Broglie-Bohm of de original the of enjde ovbeb oeatos[15-22]. authors some by solvable judged been EWRS unu ehnc;d rgi-ominterpretat Broglie-Bohm de ; Quantum KEYWORDS: oinbtol ffcsta n eaiet h e ieparam time new the to q relative the one that doe of affects potential, only external but the normal of a cause unlike potential, the quantum are but not Schrödinger conventional the in solved are as lodrvsfo h rpsdmodel. proposed uncerta the the from of derives revision also relativist mass, A potential. quantum the needn ieprmtr hs eaiemtos-sc a such - relative whose parameter, time independent ∗ nti ok oemdsl,w ei ysoigta relati a that showing by begin we modestly, more , this In CMUiest fMri,[email protected] - Spain Murcia, of University UCAM Zitterbewegung oe loivle eaiitcrvso fteuncertai the of mass. revision rest non-zero relativistic th with a determines involves only also it the model which but of potential, variable, external time new normal a affect not for quan does as potential the quantum of the theory, uncertainties rela original the whose Bohm’s cause parameter, but time observable independent directly new a introducing by picture e oma unu-eaiitcmdl hr nteconv the in where model, quantum-relativistic bohmian new A Time equation; Gordon rssagnrlzto fteclassic the of generalization a arises fafe atcei neapeo hsmto eas torig it because motion this of example an is free a of 2-5 fafe atce nters fteppr ohprob both paper, the of rest the In particle. free a of [24-25] oma Zitterbewegung Bohmian Zitterbewegung ispeRaguní Giuseppe Zitterbewegung 27-may-2021 Abstract non-locality 1 picture Zitterbewegung eeaie netit rnil (GUP); Generalized ; fafe atcei neape The example. an is particle free a of hnst h nrdcino new a of introduction the to thanks ∗ ihteLrnzcvrac,has covariance, Lorentz the with re steiaiiyt derive to inability the is ories i unu ehnc,deter- mechanics, quantum tic nypicpefrnnzr rest non-zero for principle inty t rnil o for principle nty o nuneteobservable the influence not s tcgnrlzto fti ap- this of generalization stic spooe.I sobtained is It proposed. is u bevbe.Unlike . tum ead h eycontinuity very the regards ltvsi ae.Another cases. elativistic h bevbemotion, observable the the s atmosrals The observables. uantum toerltv othe to relative one at tr ttrsotta the that out turns It eter. mptnil[-] The [1-5]. potential um iemtosaenot are motions tive ee,oeo h main the of one wever, ninlSchrödinger entional o;Rltvt;Klein- Relativity; ion; Zitterbewegung itcgeneralization vistic ntsfrom inates are - lems The paper is organized as follows: in section 2 we recall the solution of the de Broglie- Bohm model for a non-relativistic . In the following 3 and 4 we show the problems of every possible relativistic generalization of this motion, based on the original model. In section 5 the new bohmian model is defined. In section 6 we study the free particle in the proposed model, finding an oscillation that generalizes the classical Zitter- bewegung and the standard uncertainty principle. The last section 7 collects some brief final considerations.

2 Bohmian solution for a non-relativistic free particle

The de Broglie-Bohm approach [1-5] consists in replacing the function:

i ψ(~r, t)= R(~r, t) e ~ S(~r,t) (1) where R and S are real functions, into the Schrödinger equation:

∂ψ ~2 i~ = 2ψ + V ψ (2) ∂t −2m ∇ Two equations are obtained:

∂S (~ S)2 ~2 2R + ∇ + V ∇ =0 (3) ∂t 2m − 2m R

∂R2 ~ S + ~ (R2 ∇ )=0 (4) ∂t ∇· m Now, by identifying S with the Hamilton’s principal function, we have ~ S = ~p , and eq. (3) represents the Hamilton-Jacobi equation with Hamiltonian: ∇

p2 ~2 2R H = + V ∇ (5) 2m − 2m R where the last addend represents a potential that takes into account the quan- tum effects:

~2 2R V ∇ (6) Q ≡ −2m R According to the Bohm’s original quantum interpretation, the motion equation of the particle is: d~p = ~ V ~ V (7) dt −∇ − ∇ Q In the case of a free particle (V = 0), if one assume, by analogy with classical me- chanics, that ~p is constant, from the constancy of H it follows that VQ is also constant: it will be indicated by V¯Q . So, eq. (4) is transformed into a wave equation which reveals that R2 (and also R, which obeys an identical equation) is a wave that follows the particle with velocity ~v . By limiting the study to the rectilinear trajectory, which we make coincide with ~x, let’s introduce the variable ℓ x v t and indicate with a dot the derivative with respect to ℓ . Since xˆ =v ˆ , we obtain≡~ R−= R˙ (ℓ)ˆv and, applying the divergence : ∇ 2R = R¨(ℓ) (8) ∇ 2 Substituting into the eq. (6), we obtain the solution:

√kℓ √kℓ R(ℓ)= A (e + e− ) (9) 2m 1 where A is an arbitrary constant, k 2 V¯ and we imposed R (ℓ)= R ( ℓ) . ≡ − ~ Q − For k>0, i.e. V¯ < 0 , eq. (9) diverges for ℓ , losing physical interest. If the Q | |→ ∞ V¯Q is positive, we get instead:

2mV¯Q R(~r, t)= B cos ~ (x v t) (10) p − where B is an arbitrary constant. Eq. (10), although not normalizable, can represent the element of a satisfactory description. Hence, unlike the solution obtained on the of the standard interpretation of , R does not only depend on space but also on time. However, the complete solution, which we write extensively to facilitate comparison:

i ¯ ¯ i ¯ ¯ ~ (√2mVQ x (√2mVQ v+H) t) ~ (√2mVQ x (√2mVQ v H) t) ψ(~r, t)= A (e − + e− − − ) (11) is equivalent to the standard one, since the Hamiltonian is defined up to an arbitrary additive constant. In the following sections, we will seek a relativistic generalization of the previous result, using the Klein-Gordon equation and limiting ourselves to consider only non-negative values for the Hamiltonian.

3 First attempt of relativistic generalization

In reference to eq. (1), let’s interpret S as the Hamilton’s principal function, by writing:

~ S = ~p = m γ ~v (12) ∇ ∂S = H = mγc2 V (13) ∂t − − − Q where m is the rest mass, γ the Lorentz factor and we have introduced, for generality, a quantum potential VQ . We will start with the same previous assumptions: ~p , H and therefore also VQ , constant. From eq. (1), taking the gradient, then the divergence, and finally dividing by ψ , we obtain:

2ψ 2R i ~ R p2 ∇ = ∇ +2 ∇ ~p (14) ψ R ~ R · − ~2 being ~ ·~v = 0. The comparison with the Klein-Gordon equation: ∇ m2c2 1 ∂2ψ 2ψ = ψ + (15) ∇ ~2 c2 ∂t2 provides:

1Assuming that at the initial instant, t=0, the particle is in the origin, we can impose R2(ℓ)=R2( ℓ) (and therefore R(ℓ)= R( ℓ)) , due to the probabilistic meaning of localization which - sometimes -− can be given to R2. ± −

3 2R i ~ R m2γ2c2 1 ∂2ψ ∇ +2 ∇ ~p = + (16) R ~ R · ~2 c2ψ ∂t2 where we applied the identity p2 + m2c2 = m2γ2c2. On the other hand, by deriving eq. (1) successively with respect to time, we obtain:

∂ψ ∂R i i = e ~ S + ψ ( H) (17) ∂t ∂t ~ − 2 2 ∂ ψ ∂ R i i ∂R i i ∂ψ = e ~ S + e ~ S( H)+ ( H) (18) ∂t2 ∂t2 ~ ∂t − ~ − ∂t from which it can be inferred:

1 ∂2ψ 1 ∂2R i 1 ∂R H2 = 2 H (19) ψ ∂t2 R ∂t2 − ~ R ∂t − ~2 By substituting eq. (19) into eq. (16) and matching the real and imaginary parts, we obtain:

1 ∂2R 2R H2 = m2γ2c4 + ~2( c2 ∇ ) (20) R ∂t2 − R H ∂R ~p ~ R + =0 (21) · ∇ c2 ∂t Now we suppose that R is a generic wave that follows the particle with velocity ~v . By limiting the study to the rectilinear trajectory, which we make coincide with ~x , let’s introduce the variable ℓ x v t , obtaining as above: ≡ − ~ R = R˙ (ℓ)ˆv (22) ∇ 2R = R¨(ℓ) (23) ∇ The derivatives with respect to the time of R give: ∂R = R˙ (ℓ) v (24) ∂t − ∂2R = v2R¨(ℓ) (25) ∂t2 By substituting the last four equations in eqs. (20) and (21), we finally obtain:

R¨(ℓ) H2 = m2γ2c4 + ~2(v2 c2) (26) − R

v R˙ (ℓ)(mγc2 H)=0 (27) − Since we are looking for non-trivial solutions, we will assume that m and v are non- zero; moreover that R is not constant, as we found in the non-relativistic case. But in 2 such hypotheses, eq. (27) implies H = mγc and therefore VQ = 0 , while in the non- relativistic case we have seen that it is admitted that it is a non-zero constant. Now, it is true that this does not imply any absurdity, since H is defined up to an arbitrary additive constant; however, the fact remains that in the context of Bohm’s interpretation one cannot assign to the quantum potential a straightforward continuity between the relativistic and non-relativistic cases, and this is not very satisfactory. For this reason it seems appropriate to look for an alternative.

4 4 No alternative in the Bohm’s standard interpretation

Keeping the hypothesis that H is a constant of motion, let’s try to introduce a time dependence for the of the particle. Eqs. (20) and (21) do not change. For R, we will continue to assume that it is a wave following the particle, and therefore an arbitrary function of ℓ x t v(ξ) dξ ; but eqs. (22), (24) and, consequently, (27) remain ≡ − 0 unchanged, so one still gets the´ unsatisfactory solution VQ =0. We therefore reach a first, strong conclusion: if there is a more satisfactory relativistic generalization of the bohmian quantum mechanics, in it the Hamiltonian cannot be a constant of motion 2. If H is a function of time, the case in which the moment of the particle remains constant is still impossible if we keep the hypothesis that R is an arbitrary function of R¨(ℓ) ℓ x v t . In fact, based on eq. (26), VQ is a function of R and therefore also a function≡ − of ℓ . Then, from the equation of motion: d~p = ~ V = V˙ (ℓ)ˆv =0 (28) dt −∇ Q − Q

it follows that VQ is constant. But then, from eq. (13), H should also be constant. Finally, let us explore the last possibility: that H and ~p are both variable. By assuming t for R an arbitrary function of ℓ x 0 v(ξ) dξ , eqs. (22), (23) and (24) do not change, while eq. (25) transforms into: ≡ − ´

2 ∂ R 2 = v R¨(ℓ) R˙ (ℓ) v′(t) (29) ∂t2 − where the apostrophe indicates a derivative with respect to time. Substituting in eq. (20) we obtain:

c2 R¨ R˙ 2 2 4 ~2 ~2 H = m γ c v′ (30) s − γ2 R − R i ∂H On the other hand, the time dependence for H implies the new addend ~ ∂t to the second member of eq. (19), so, in place of (27), we have: −

R˙ 1 ∂H v (mγc2 H)+ =0 (31) R − 2 ∂t γ3 Substituting eq. (30) into eq. (31), being γ′ = c2 v v′ , we arrive at the following expression:

2 2 2 2 ... ~ v′′ 4R˙ 3~ R˙ R¨ ~ 3R¨R˙ R H mγc2 γ3 ( 2 ) + 2 2 ( 2 + )+ 2 3 ( 2 + )+2 =0 (32) − − 4mγc v mv′R m γc R R m γ v′ R R

where we admit v′ = 0 , in addition to the previous hypotheses of non-triviality. Eq. 6 (32) should hold whatever the rest mass m is, but it is clear that this is impossible: when m increases, all the addends become small, except the last one which remains a non-zero number. This latter failure exhausts the possibilities, for Bohm’s original quantum model, of the existence of a relativistic generalization more satisfactory than that one we found in the previous section.

2 This is possible if VQ is not a generalized potential, see e.g. [23].

5 5 A new bohmian relativistic model

The attempt with variable H and constant moment failed due to the bohmian equation (28); one could then think of referring it to a new, independent, intrinsic moment ~ , variable over time: d~p i = ~ V (33) dt −∇ Q This motion could coincide with the Zitterbewegung of a free particle, the famous ~ 2mγc2 sinusoidal motion of amplitude 2mγc and angular frequency ~ in any direction [24- 25]. The Zitterbewegung emerges in the Heisenberg’s picture and the debate on its exact interpretation - and even observability - is not yet resolved [26-39]. To find this peculiar movement in a deterministic approach could clarify its . However, the idea given by (33) does not work. In the sketched picture, the momentum of the particle would be:

~p ~p + ~p (34) ≡ o i where ~po is the constant moment actually observed, to be substituted for ~p in all the equations written above, except those (7) and (28). In the one-dimensional simplification, a wave following the particle would then be an arbitrary function of ℓ x v t t v (ξ) dξ ≡ − o − 0 i ; however, we have seen that for R we must consider a dependence only on x vo´t to avoid getting the impossible eq. (32) again. But it is obvious that if R does not− also depend on vi , eq. (33) is unable to account for the intrinsic motion. The idea of neglecting the intrinsic movement in derivatives with respect to time, due to the fact that it consists of very rapid oscillations, could work in many cases as an approximation but, as we have seen, it is generally incorrect. The solution we propose is the introduction of a new independent time parameter τ for the spatial coordinates of the particle. That is, we admit that they depend on two independent time variables: t and τ . By referring, for simplicity, only to x(t, τ) , let’s introduce two velocities: ∂x v (35) o ≡ ∂t ∂x v (36) i ≡ ∂τ having therefore:

dx = vodt + vidτ (37)

Now, let’s suppose that vo and vi depend, respectively, only on t and τ . By integrating, we so get:

t τ x(t, τ)= x(0, 0) + v (ξ) dξ + v (ζ) dζ (38) ˆ o ˆ i 0 0 The imposition, empirically inevitable, that the intrinsic motion in τ is not directly observable, does not prevent that, in general, it has dramatic effects on a of the : given that τ is independent of t, the eq. (38) allows to the particle, observed in its trajectory as a function of t, to jump instantly from one point of space to another

6 arbitrarily far, through the time dimension τ . But the quantum mechanics has already suggested such behavior in the non-locality and, more generally, in the "sum of histories" interpretation due to Feynman, in which the physical characteristics of a displacement from A to B, for a particle or , can be explained correctly only by admitting that it has traveled simultaneously all the possible trajectories from A to B 3. In the rear, to make the described uncertainty in accordance with quantum mechanics, just recognize that the ~r(τ) function should vary where R2 is not null and we have, therefore, some probability to find the particle. In our case, in which the free particle is described by a single wave, we will impose (in the next section) that ~r(τ) has a Compton length order maximum amplitude, representing this value the minimum spatial location. If, however, the particle is described by a wave packet, we have to require that the maximum excursion ~ for the position is of the order of λ = p . The idea, hence, is that the motion in τ is the direct cause of the quantum uncertainties. In the new model, we require that the external potential V only affects the motion in t: d~p o = ~ V (39) dt −∇ leaving the quantum potential to affect only that one in τ . All the equations of referred to time t remain unchanged. Let’s rewrite, for example, eq. (13) for a free particle, specifying the time dependencies: ∂S = H(t, τ)= mγ c2 V (t, τ) (40) ∂t − − o − Q 1 2 So, we do not have to add the intrinsic 2 mγovi to the hamiltonian, since what in S depends only on τ is eliminated by making the partial derivative with respect to t. t A generic wave that follows the particle will be a function of ℓ x vo(ξ) dξ τ ≡ − 0 − 0 vi(ζ) dζ , setting: x(0, 0) = 0 . The variable ℓ includes the dependence´ on t and τ , and´ now we have ∂ℓ = v and: ∂t − o ∂ℓ = v (41) ∂τ − i

With the idea that ~pi accounts for the Zitterbewegung, we will assume that the Re- stricted Relativity does not hold for the intrinsic motion. This condition is consistent with the fact that, in this peculiar motion, the mass of the particle does not undergo any rela- tivistic increase - other than that one due to the observable, constant, part of the velocity - despite it reaches the speed c. That aside, the intrinsic motion must of course obey the classical laws of motion, as kinetic energy theorem, , etc. Taking into account eq. (41) and considering that the mass involved in the intrinsic motion is mγo , we will impose for the motion in τ : d~v mγ i = ~ V (ℓ) (42) o dτ ∇ Q The + sign of the second member is due to eq. (41): specifying in ℓ , we find the ∂2~ℓ classic equation: mγ 2 = ~ V (ℓ) . o ∂τ −∇ Q 3Doing everything that was possible to do, such as emitting or absorbing an arbitrary number of (if it is an ) and interacting with every other particle in all possible ways, even exceeding c.

7 The novelties of the new relativistic bohmian model can be summarized as follows: 1. The spatial coordinates of the particle have to vary as a function of two independent temporal parameters, t and τ . The motion in τ , unlike that one in t, is not directly observable: it influences the giving rise to the characteristical uncertainties of the quantum mechanics. 2. In relation to time t, the standard quantum and relativistic laws apply. 3. The bohmian law of motion (7) is replaced by eq. (39) for the observable motion and by eq. (42) for the motion in τ , for which the Restricted Relativity is therefore not valid.

6 Zitterbewegung in the new bohmian model

Let’s study finally a free particle in the newly introduced bohmian model. From eq. (39) we deduce that the observed moment is constant. The equations referring to t time, when H is variable, were previously found:

c2 R¨ H m2γ2c4 ~2 = o 2 (43) s − γo R R˙ 1 ∂H v (mγ c2 H)+ =0 (44) o R o − 2 ∂t where we remember that vo is the observed velocity. Before continuing, we just observe that the non-relativistic limit for VQ can be obtained from eq. (43) for c : →∞ ~2 R¨ ~2 R¨ H mc2 (1 )= mc2 (45) ≃ − 2m2c2 R − 2m R in agreement with eq. (6). 2 2 ~ Placing λr 2 2 4 - the square of the relativistic Compton length divided again by a ≡ m c γo Lorentz factor - eqs. (43) and (44) become:

R¨ H = mγ c2 1 λ2 (46) o s − r R R˙ H H2 1 ∂H2 v o ( 2 2 2 4 )+ 2 2 4 =0 (47) R mγo c − m γo c 4 m γo c ∂t By squaring eq. (46) and substituting in eq. (47) we get:

R˙ 1 ∂β v ( β β)= (48) o R − −4 ∂t where β(ℓ) 1 λ2 R¨ . Since it isp∂β(ℓ) = β˙ (ℓ) v , we obtain: ≡ − r R ∂t − o R˙ (ℓ) 1 β˙ = (49) R 4 √β β − Equation (49) can be integrated member by member after multiplying by dℓ . After easy steps, one finds:

8 c 1+ 1 = β (50) R2

where c1 is an arbitrary constant. Recall thatp we are limiting ourselves to consider only non-negative values for the Hamiltonian, so discarding the possibility of having √β instead of √β in eqs. (48-50). On the basis of eq. (46) we therefore obtain: − c H = mγ c2 (1 + 1 ) (51) o R2 2 c1 and so the quantum potential is: VQ = mγoc R2 . Compatibility with the non- relativistic case requires c1 be positive, as we have seen. By squaring eq. (50) and substituting β , we find this differential equation for R:

c R¨ (1 + 1 )2 =1 λ2 (52) R2 − r R A first integration provides:

1 c2 R˙ 1 c ln R c = 2 4 1 + 2 (53) ±λr rR − | | where c2 is an arbitrary constant. Equation (53) is compatible with a R(ℓ) even and with a maximum positive in the origin, which we denote by RM : so, we will have sign - for ℓ> 0 and + for ℓ< 0 . In this way we determine c2 , getting:

√c1 c c R R˙ 1 1 ln M = 2 2 +4 (54) ± λr sR − RM | R | c1 Placing f R2 > 0 , the quantum potential is rewritten: ≡ M R2 V = mγ c2f M (55) Q o R2 2 and its minimum value is in the origin, where R = RM : VQm = mγoc f . R is determined by integrating eq. (54):

dR R √f M ℓ c 2 = + 3 (56) ˆ RM RM − λr | | f( 2 1)+4 ln R − | R | which cannot be simplifiedq by means of standard functions. In a small neighborhood of the origin, i.e. for R RM , eq. (56) gives for R a quadratic dependence on ℓ. Here, in fact, the rooting at→ first member is approximated by 2(f + 2)(1 R ) , so by integrating we have: − RM R f(f + 2) 1 ℓ +c (57) R √ 4 r − M ≃ p 2λr | | The arbitrary constant c4 is null by imposing ℓ =0 for R = RM . We thus obtain: f(f + 2) R R ℓ2 M (1 2 ) (58) ≃ − 2λr 1 1 1 1 f(f + 2) (1 + ℓ2) (59) 2 2 f(f+2) 2 2 2 R ≃ RM 1 2 ℓ ≃ RM λr − λr

9 Therefore, around the origin the quantum potential can be approximated by the po- tential of a harmonic oscillator. From eq. (55):

f(f + 2) V mγ c2f ℓ2 Q o (1 + 2 ) (60) ≃ λr By replacing it into the equation of motion in τ (42) and imposing ℓ(τ =0)=0 , we finally get the solutions referred to the motion not directly observable: c π ℓ(τ) Acos( f 2(f + 2))τ + ) (61) ≃ λr 2 p ∂ℓ c c π vi(τ)= A f 2(f + 2)) sin( f 2(f + 2))τ + ) (62) −∂τ ≃ λr λr 2 The angular frequency obtainedp is more general thanp that one of the classical Zitter- 2 bewegung. This latter, 2mγoc , we can get for A = ~ and v = c . With these ~ 2mγoc iMAX values, we also obtain: γ f 2(f +2)=2 , that, for γ =1 , provides: f 0.839. o o ≃ However, based on eq. (55), dependence of f on γo appears forced in our model. p λr By only imposing vi = c , we get A = , where we will assume that f is MAX f√2(f+2) of the order of unity. Recalling that these values constitute the uncertainties on the corresponding observable quantities, let us reconsider the uncertainty principle:

λr ~ ~ mγoc = (63) f 2(f + 2) × f 2(f + 2)γo ∼ γo As a novelty, there isp the Lorentz factor in thep denominator. Bearing in mind eq. (43) this seems correct: there is a γo which increases the relativistic mass and another γo which decreases the influence of ~ . At speeds close to c the quantum effects in the direction of motion must be negligible for particles with non-zero rest mass. The maximum value of the quantum potential, VQM , can be found by applying energy conservation to the motion in τ : 1 mγ c2 + mγ c2f =0+ V (64) 2 o o QM 2 1 that provides: VQM = mγoc (f + 2 ) . Therefore VQ , and so also H, oscillates with an 1 2 amplitude of 2 mγoc : this value represents the quantum uncertainty in a measure of the energy for a free particle with a minimum location given by λr . Let’s find again f√2(f+2) the uncertainty principle by multiplying by the half-period of the oscillation: ~ ~ 1 2 πλr π mγoc = (65) 2 × f 2(f + 2) c 2 f 2(f + 2)γo ∼ γo

In correspondence of VQM wep obtain the minimump value for R:

RM Rm = (66) 1 1+ 2f

q λr For a numerical estimate, we will now impose A = 2 , that is f 2(f +2) =2 f 0.839 , obtaining: R 0.79 R . The proximity of this value to R suggests⇒ that,≃ m M p M under the supposed condition,≃ the found harmonic solution is generalizable, with good approximation, at any instant τ . In particular, using eq. (58) for an estimate of the maximum value of ℓ we have:

10 1 ℓM λr f (1 ) 0.42λr (67) ≃ v − 1 1 ≃ u 2f u − λr t q close to 2 , where the velocity is zero based on the harmonic solution. This is a confirmation of the general validity of the harmonic approximation under our assumptions, without the strict need for further investigations on eq. (56). Finally, a normalization of R2 (numerical, given the non-simplification by means of standard functions of (56)), can determine RM as a function of f.

6.1 Zitterbewegung in arbitrary direction

We got the intrinsic motion in the direction of motion vˆo =x ˆ . The generalization in an arbitrary direction sˆ, which forms an angle ϑ with vˆo , is obtained by considering the variable ℓ s v t τ v (ζ) dζ , where v = v cosϑ. Eqs. (43) and (44) are generalized s ≡ − s − 0 is s o by: ´ c2 R¨ H m2γ2c4 ~2 = o 2 (68) s − γs R R˙ 1 ∂H v (mγ c2 H)+ =0 (69) s R o − 2 ∂t 2 2 ~ Placing: λr 2 2 2 2 , we get back the same equations we have considered. The Hamil- ≡ m c γo γs tonian and the quantum potential, given by (51) and (55), do not change, not even the amplitude of their oscillations. By imposing the equation of motion: d~v mγ is = ~ V (ℓ ) (70) o dτ ∇ Q s we obtain an intrinsic harmonic motion described again by (61) and (62), but with the new value of λr . The consequence on the uncertainty principle - equations (63) and (65) - is the presence of γs instead of γo in the denominator. Therefore, in the particular case of sˆ perpendicular to vˆo , the “classic” uncertainty principle, independent of speed, is re-established.

7 Final remarks

The new bohmian model is obtained by introducing a new independent temporal di- mension, τ, whose relative movements are not directly observable but constitute the uncertainties of all the observables of quantum mechanics. Unlike Bohm’s original the- ory, the quantum potential does not affect the observable motion in t, as occurs for a normal external potential, but it only determines the intrinsic one in τ . This peculiarity can be understood considering the "retroactive" nature of the quantum potential, which originates from the same of the particle. The intrinsic motion found for a free particle, so, is due to an interaction of the particle with its own wave (without the need to invoke the ) and although is more general than the Zitterbewegung discovered by Schrödinger, can be well approximated with it. This movement is caused by the quantum potential and gives rise to the uncertainty of a measure of the particle’s position. The Hamiltonian itself is not constant, but is a

11 wave that follows the particle, function of both temporal variables; the variability in τ causes an oscillation which, like for any other observable, produces its indeterminacy. The evanescence of the uncertainty principle in the direction of motion, for velocities close to c , can become clear just by observing the general equation (68), valid for non-zero rest masses: in it, not only we have a Lorentz factor that multiplies the rest mass, but also another one - equal to 1 only in perpendicular direction to the direction of motion - which directly reduces the quantum potential, which is the cause of motion in τ and hence of quantum uncertainties. The consideration of a new independent time parameter is an unusual and certainly not intuitive idea; but its mathematical simplicity is disarming. Traveling in an independent time dimension, a particle or photon can instantly "notice" (in relation to the usual time) the presence of another slit (as in a Davisson-Germer diffraction), it can run across all the possible paths between two points, also exceeding the (in relation to the usual time), it can admit a non-local relationship with another particle ... All things that it actually does according to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. The introduction of a new time variable is sufficient to explain all these peculiarities within a deterministic picture.

References

[1] de Broglie L. in: et Photons: Rapports et Discussions du Cinquième Conseil de Physique, Gauthier-Villars, ed. J. Bordet, Paris (1928).

[2] Bohm, D.: Phys. Rev. 85, 166 (1952); Bohm, D.: Phys. Rev. 85, 194 (1952).

[3] Bohm, D and Hiley, B. J.: The Undivided Universe, Routhledge, London (1993).

[4] Holland, P.: The Quantum Theory of Motion: an account of the de Broglie-Bohm causal interpretation of quantum mechanics, University Press, Cambridge (1993).

[5] Dürr D. and S. Teufel S.: Bohmian Mechanics, Springer, Berlin (2009).

[6] Cufaro Petroni N. and Jean Pierre Vigier J. P.: Foundations of Physics, Vol. 13, No. 2, 253 (1983).

[7] Hardy L.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2981 (1992).

[8] Berndl K., Dürr D., Goldstein S. and Zanghì N.: Phys. Rev. A 53, 2062 (1996); arXiv:quant-ph/9510027

[9] Valentini A.: Phys. Lett. A 228, 215 (1997); arXiv:0812.4941.

[10] Gisin N.: Phys. Rev. A 83, 020102 (2011); arXiv:1002.1390.

[11] Dürr D., Goldstein S., Norsen T., Struyve W., Zanghì N.: Can Bohmian mechanics be made relativistic? Proc. R. Soc. A 470: 20130699 (2014); http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2013.0699

[12] Dürr D., Lienert M.: On the description of subsystems in relativistic hy- persurface Bohmian mechanics, Proc. R. Soc. A 470: 20140181 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2014.0181

12 [13] Galvan, B.: Relativistic Bohmian Mechanics Without a Preferred Foliation, J. Stat Phys 161, 1268 (2015).

[14] Tumulka, R.: On Bohmian Mechanics, Particle Creation, and Relativistic Space- Time: Happy 100th Birthday, !, Entropy 20, 6, 462 (2018).

[15] Shojai A. and Shojai F.: About Some Problems Raised by the Relativistic Form of De-Broglie–Bohm Theory of Pilot Wave, Phys. Scr. 64, 413 (2001).

[16] Nikolić, H.: Bohmian Particle Trajectories in Relativistic Bosonic , Found Phys Lett 17, 363 (2004).

[17] Nikolić, H.: Relativistic Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics, AIP Confer- ence Proceedings 844, 272 (2006).

[18] Nikolić, H.: Bohmian mechanics in relativistic quantum mechanics, quantum field theory and string theory, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 67: 012035 (2006).

[19] Nikolić, H.: Time in relativistic and nonrelativistic Quantum Mechanics, Interna- tional Journal of , Vol. 07, No. 03, 595 (2009).

[20] Hernández-Zapata S. and Hernández-Zapata E.: Found. Phys. 40, 532 (2010).

[21] Nikolić, H.:Time and probability: From to relativistic Bohmian mechanics, arXiv:1309.0400v2 (2013).

[22] Nikolić, H.: Relativistic-covariant Bohmian mechanics with proper foliation, arXiv:1205.4102v2 (2018).

[23] Malham S. J.A.: An Introduction to Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Mechanics, Heriot- Watt University, 47 (2016).

[24] Schrodinger E.: Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Phys. Math. Kl. 24, 418 (1930).

[25] Dirac P.A.M.: The of Quantum Mechanics, Oxford University Press, 261 (1958).

[26] Huang K.: On the Zitterbewegung of the Dirac Electron, American Journal of Physics 20, 479 (1952).

[27] Barut A. O. and Bracken A. J.: Zitterbewegung and the internal geometry of the electron, Phys. Rev. D 23, 2454 (1981).

[28] Hestenes, D.: The zitterbewegung interpretation of quantum mechanics, Found Phys 20, 1213 (1990).

[29] Ferrari L. and Russo G.: Nonrelativistic zitterbewegung in two-band systems, Phys. Rev. B 42, 7454 (1990).

[30] Krekora P., Su Q. and Grobe R.: Relativistic Electron Localization and the Lack of Zitterbewegung, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 043004 (2004).

[31] Vaishnav J. Y. and Clark C. W.: Observing Zitterbewegung with Ultracold , Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 153002 (2008).

[32] Sidharth, B.G.: Revisiting Zitterbewegung, Int J Theor Phys 48, 497 (2009).

13 [33] Zawadzki W. and Rusin T. M.: Nature of electron Zitterbewegung in crystalline solids, Physics Letters A Volume 374, Issue 34, 3533 (2010).

[34] LeBlanc L. J. et al.: Direct of zitterbewegung in a Bose–Einstein conden- sate, New J. Phys. 15 073011 (2013).

[35] Qu C. et al.: Observation of Zitterbewegung in a -orbit-coupled Bose-Einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. A 88, 021604 (2013).

[36] Stepanov I. et al.: Coherent Electron Zitterbewegung, arXiv:1612.06190v1 (2016).

[37] Silenko A. J.: Zitterbewegung of , Physics of Particles and Nuclei Letters, Vol. 17, No. 2, 116 (2020).

[38] Silenko A. J.: Zitterbewegung of massless particles, arXiv:2008.05954 (2020).

[39] Silenko A. J.: Zitterbewegung in quantum mechanics of Proca particles, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1435, 012057 (2020).

14