## tisdag 25 augusti 2015

### Finite Element Quantum Mechanics 1: Listening to Bohm

David Bohm discusses in the concluding chapter of Quantum Theory the relationship between quantum and classical physics, stating the following charcteristics of classical physics:
1. The world can be analysed into distinct elements.
2. The state of each element can be described in terms of dynamical variables that are specified with arbitrarily high precision.
3. The interrelationship between parts of a system can be described with the aid of exact casual was that define the changes of the above dynamical variables with time in terms of their initial values. The behavior of the system as a whole can be regarded as the result of the interaction by its parts.
If we here replace, "arbitrarily high precision" and  "exact" with "finite precision", the description 1-3 can be viewed as a description of
• the finite element method
• as digital physics as digital computation with finite precision
• as mathematical simulation of real physics as analog computation with finite precision.
My long-term goal is to bring quantum mechanics into a paradigm of classical physics modified by finite precision computation, as a form of computational quantum mechanics, thus bridging the present immense gap between quantum and classical physics. This gap is described by Bohm as follows:
• The quantum properties of matter imply the indivisibility unity of all interacting systems. Thus we have contradicted 1 and 2 of the classical theory, since there exist on the quantum level neither well defined elements nor well defined dynamical variables, which describe the behaviour of these elements.
My idea is thus to slightly modify classical physics by replacing "arbitrarily high precision" with "finite precision" to encompass quantum mechanics thus opening microscopic quantum mechanics to a machinery which has been so amazingly powerful in the form of finite element methods for macroscopic continuum physics, instead of throwing everything over board and resorting to a game of roulette as in the text book version of quantum mechanics which Bohm refers to.

In particular, in this new form of computational quantum mechanics, an electron is viewed as an "element" or a "collection of elements", each element with a distinct non-overlapping spatial presence, with an interacting system of $N$ electrons described by a (complex-valued) wave function $\psi (x,t)$ depending on a 3d space coordinate $x$ and a time coordinate $t$ of the form
• $\psi (x,t) = \psi_1(x,t) + \psi_2(x,t)+...+\psi_N(x,t)$,                             (1)
where the electronic wave functions $\psi_j(x,t)$ for $j=1,...,N$, have disjoint supports together filling 3d space, indicating the individual presence of the electrons in space and time. The system wave function $\psi (x,t)$ is required to satisfy a Schrödinger wave equation including a Laplacian
asking the composite wave functions $\psi (x,t)$ to be continuous along with derivatives across inter element boundaries. This a is a free boundary problem in 3d space and time and as such readily computable.

I have with satisfaction observed that a spherically symmetric shell version of such a finite element model does predict ground state energies in close comparison to observation (within a percent) for all elements in the periodic table, and I will report these results shortly.

We may compare the wave function given by (1) with the wave function of text book quantum mechanics as a linear combination of terms of the multiplicative form:
• $\psi (x_1,x_2,...x_N,t)=\psi_1(x_1,t)\times\psi_2(x_2,t)\times ...\times\psi_N(x_N,t)$,
depending on $N$ 3d space coordinates $x_1,x_2,...,x_N$ and time, where each factor $\psi_j(x_j,t)$ is part of a (statistical) description of the global particle presence of an electron labeled $j$ with $x_j$ ranging over all of 3d space. Such a wave function is uncomputable as the solution to a Schrödinger equation in $3N$ space coordinates, and thus has no scientific value. Nevertheless, this is the text book foundation of quantum mechanics.

Text book quantum mechanics is thus based on a model which is uncomputable (and thus useless from scientific point of view), but the model is not dismissed on these grounds. Instead it is claimed that the uncomputable model always is in exact agreement to all observations according to tests of this form:
• If a computable approximate version of this model (such as Hartree-Fock with a specific suitably chosen set of electronic orbitals) happens to be in correspondence with observation (due to some unknown happy coincidence), then this is taken as evidence that the exact version is always correct.
• If a computable approximate version happens to disagree with observation, which is often the case, then the approximate version is dismissed but the exact model is kept; after all, an approximate model which is wrong (or too approximate) should be possible to view as evidence that an exact model as being less approximate must be more (or fully) correct, right?
PS The fact that the finite element method has been such a formidable success for macroscopic problems as systems made up of very many small parts or elements, gives good hope that this method will be at least as useful for microscopic systems viewed to be formed by fewer and possibly simpler (rather than more complex) elements. This fits into a perspective (opposite to the standard view) where microscopics comes out to be more simple than macroscopics,  because macroscopics is built from microscopics, and a DNA molecule is more complex than a carbon atom, and a human being more complex than an egg cell.