DERIVING SCHR214;DINGER S WAVE EQUATION（波动方程推导薛定214;全垒打）.pdfVIP

DERIVING SCHRÖDINGER’S WAVE EQUATION Among the tools of modern physics, the Schrödinger equation has been among the most ontologically vague. It mathematically details the behavior of Ψ, but it gives us no purchase on the question of its nature. The metaphysical ambiguity beneath Ψ has given rise to dozens of interpretations of quantum mechanics, each starting from wildly different assumptions about what the wave equation tells us about the world. i Schrödinger originally tried (unsuccessfully) to interpret Ψ as a charge density. Max Born subsequently interpreted it as a ‘probability amplitude,’ whose absolute square is ii equal to a probability density. To the dismay of every student, this definition stuck. A ‘probability amplitude’ is arguably just as ontologically inaccessible as the wavefunction it is supposed to elucidate. This has become the elephant in the physics classroom. We can lucidly talk about the amplitude of a probability wave, or the probability of finding and amplitude, but it is not so easy to claim that you are being lucid when talking about a ‘probability amplitude.’ One of the beautiful consequences of the assumption that the vacuum is a superfluid is that it dissolves the vagueness of Ψ. If the vacuum is a superfluid, then we should model it as an acoustic metric. This conditional carries us to the logical expectation that a wave equation will be an intrinsic descriptor of any system that is internal to the vacuum. It should be a descriptor of the state of the vacuum itself. A metric composed of particles (molecules, atoms, quanta, etc.) which collectively contribute to the emergent notions of a density field and a velocity field, necessarily has waves. These waves are analogous to sound waves, and their propagation is a function of the compressibility of the med