Predicting Stock Market Prices with Physical Laws

J. T. Manhire
Texas A&M University School of Law
WORKING PAPER

Abstract
This paper argues that one can calculate the probability of an assets price dis-
placement in a specific direction assuming the asset complies with the physical
principle of least action. It first suggests that the price displacement of a finan-
cial asset is essentially dampened harmonic motion and then applies physical
principles such as the Lagrangian and stationary action to analyze this motion.
From this analysis, the paper constructs a method to predict the probability
of an assets price displacement in both magnitude and direction. Initial tests
show that the method produces accurate probability predictions.

Keywords: econophysics; asset prices; market model; probability; principle of

least action; stock market; statistical finance; predictability

1. Overview
This paper seeks to show that the probability of an assets price displace-
ment in a specific direction can be calculated assuming the asset complies with
the physical principle of least (i.e., stationary) action. We hypothesize that,
just as in classical mechanics, the action of an asset is the time integral of
its Lagrangian, which is simply a collection of the assets equations of motion
expressed in terms of position and velocity.
Others have postulated that analyzing an objects motion using the La-
grangian method and its stationary action can accurately predict the probability
for a specific event.1 We adopt these postulates in part and outline a method
for calculating discrete and continuous probabilities of an assets change in price
using only physical analogs.
This theory is testable in part. The probability of an assets price displace-
ment can be currently assessed by observing the occurrence of certain price

Corresponding author: 1515 Commerce Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102

Email address: jmanhire@law.tamu.edu (J. T. Manhire)
1 See R. P. Feynman, Space-Time Approach to Non-Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, 20

Rev. Mod. Phys. 367, 367 (1948).

Preprint submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017. February 11, 2017

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 2

displacements using a very large historical price sample for specific financial
assets and comparing the predictions of the theory with the true probabilities
occurring in the stock market.2 We attempt this comparison with only two
assets in Appendix A to this paper. These limited results show that the proba-
bilities predicted by the theorys equations are within 0.02 points (2 percentage
points) of the probabilities calculated from over 11 years of historical data.
Although some might dismiss out of hand the possibility of this theory by
stating flatly that economics is not physics,3 there seems to be little that would
restrict analyzing a system representing the information generated by human
interactions simply because the object of that system happens to be the specific
category of human interaction. While it is true that at the individual level it
might be impossible (or at least extremely complex) to express the personal
decisions and actions of an individual human person in mathematical terms and
relations, much of this individuality is lost in the aggregate; especially when the
magnitude of the aggregate is regularly in the millions or even billions.4
One might expect to simply apply the standard equations of physical motion
to arrive at our conclusion, but this proves not possible.5 We must accept the
fact that certain modifications must be made in order to ensure our results
match experience. These modifications are not blind leaps of faith, but they
are not direct derivations either. Although we will certainly adopt quite a few
physical equations, our primary concern is to adopt the ideas of physical motion
as they might apply to the price movement of financial assets. Perhaps then
economics is not physics, but that is not to say that it is impossible for the two
to be very closely related variants of each other, especially on the macro-level.
We must also be clear as to the limits of this paper. What does this frame-

2 In this way, our use of the term probability is consistent with the frequentist interpre-

tation. See generally Ian Hacking, The Emergence of Probability: A Philosophical

Study of Early Ideas about Probability, Induction, and Statistical Inference (2d
ed., 2006).
3 See Ludwig von Mises, Social Science and Natural Science, 7 J. Soc. Phil. & Jur.

III (1942)(Economics deals with human action, not with objects (as physics does)....)
(emphasis in original).
4 Ive written previously on this topic in the limited context of tax compliance. Here I

expand the notion to other human interactive systems. See J. T. Manhire, Tax Compliance
as a Wicked System, 18 Fla. Tax Rev. 235 (2016); J. T. Manhire, Deriving the Expected
Value of the Tax Underreporting Rate 2 J. Poly & Complex Sys. 4 (2015); J. T. Manhire,
There Is No Spoon: Reconsidering the Tax Compliance Puzzle, 17 Fla. Tax Rev. 623, 257-
61 (2015) J. Manhire, Toward a Perspective-Dependent Theory of Audit Probability for Tax
Compliance Models, 33 Va. Tax Rev. 629 (2014). Others have written about the unity of
ecosystems and how small-scale and large-scale dynamics support and affect each other. See,
e.g., James H. Bunn, The Natural Law of Cycles: Governing the Mobile Symmetries
of Animals and Machines (2014). We see a similar issue with the statistical mechanics
of Brownian motion. See Albert Einstein, Uber die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie
der W arme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Fl ussigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen, 17
Annalen der Physik 549 (1905).
5 Although others have certainly tried. See, e.g., Belal E. Baaquie, A Path Integral Ap-

proach to Option Pricing with Stochastic Volatility: Some Exact Results, 7 J. Phys. I France
1733 (1997).

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 3

work mean for our understanding of the true nature of financial assets and their
movements? This theory provides no explanation for these phenomena. By the
end of this paper, the reader will know no better what an asset really is, other
than a system of information. The paper merely provides a new theory for
measuring one aspect of our experience; a construct that hopefully surmounts
earlier contradictions between economics and physics.
As a consequence, the theory reported in the following pages might very
well be wrong,6 although the very close match between the predicted and ac-
tual probabilities suggests there is something here worth investigating. Even if
parts end up being incorrect, there is still value in looking at something from a
completely different angle and explaining it in a fresh way. As Richard Feynman
wrote in his own work on the principle of least action, there is always the hope
that the new point of view will inspire an idea for the modification of present
theories.7
The paper begins with an examination of how prices move for financial assets
traded on an exchange and concludes such is an analog to harmonic oscillation.
It then turns to constructing probabilities for specific price movements of an
asset using the Lagrangian method and its principle of stationary action. Lastly,
it combines the probability computations for price displacement magnitude and
direction to formulate a single method of predicting the probability for a specific
price displacement in a specific direction.

2. How Does an Asset Move in Price?

We would like to understand what causes the price of an asset to move. We

would like even more to explain this motion generally and not just in specific
situations. Lets begin by looking at a typical stock chart and seeing what
we can deduce from it. A stock chart is merely a physical representation of
information.8 Lets see if this physical representation has something to tell us

6 In which case this paper will end up as just one more attempt to accomplish the pa-

thetic. Paul Samuelson, Maximum Principles in Analytical Economics, in Nobel Lectures

68 (Assar Lindbeck ed., 1992) (There really is nothing more pathetic than to have [someone]
try to force analogies between the concepts of physics and the concepts of economics. How
many dreary papers have I had to referee in which the author is looking for something that
corresponds to entropy or to one or another form of energy.).
My colleagues Professors James McGrath and Saurabh Vishnubhakat correctly point out
that there very well might be other reasons why the results match historical data other than the
proposition that information is subject to physical laws. Additionally, Professor Vishnubhakat
sees an inferential leap in concluding that observations of information being compliant with
physical laws is evidence of information being subject to physical laws. Both statements are
patently correct and reflect my own concerns about explaining observed phenomena with a
very specific theory when, in fact, the exact same results can be just as accurately explained
with a completely different theory. In the end, I accept these criticisms and acknowledge that
they might apply here.
7 Feynman, supra note 1, at 368.
8 Cf. Rolf Landauer, Information Is Physical, Physics Today 23 (May 1991):

Information is inevitably tied to a physical representation. It can be engraved

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 4

about the degree to which the asset as a system of information complies with
physical laws.

Figure 1: SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average (Ticker Symbol: DIA)

The chart in Figure 1 shows the SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average (Ticker
Symbol: DIA) for one week of trading. The time axis t is the abscissa and the
price axis x is the ordinate.
Lets call the state of this asset at the very beginning of this one-week period
A = (tA , xA ), meaning that before the opening bell rings for this week, the asset
starts at price xA . Well define the very end of this same one-week period as
B = (tB , xB ), meaning that the moment after the bell rings to end this week
of trading the asset is at price xB . For the sake of brevity, lets call the elapsed
time simply t and the change in price simply x. In other words, tB tA = t = t
and xB xA = x = x, unless specified otherwise.
We are concerned here only with the price displacement x and less concerned

on stone tablets, denoted by a spin up or down, a charge present or absent, a

hole punched in a card, or many other alternative physical phenomena. It is not
just an abstract entity; it does not exist except through a physical embodiment.
It is, therefore, tied to the laws of physics and the parts available to us in our
real physical universe.

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 5

about the actual values of xA and xB . For this reason, we can assume xA = 0
for any discussion of the price displacement as such. This is because the change
in price is homogeneous even if prices themselves are heterogeneous. There
is a difference between $100 and $20, but no difference between $100 minus
$95 and $20 minus $15. In both cases x = $5. The same can be said of any
elapsed time t, allowing us to assume that tA = 0. This is a version of a passive
coordinate transformation that is allowable since the changes in price and time
are homogeneous, or invariant under translation. This assumption also means
changes in price and time are isotropic, or invariant under rotation.
From Figure 1 we are tempted to see the assets price movement from xA
to xB as a path that it takes through various prices from tA to tB . Indeed, we
will call this the particles price path later in our discussion, but for now to
view the fundamental dynamics of the system as a path through time can be
misleading. The path is the end result of a much more basic dynamic.
To examine this more fundamental price movement, we need to divide the
time axis into infinitesimal slices and see whats happening at each slice. For
the movement of the asset from state A to state B along the price path, we can
define a time sequence of

tA = t0 < t1 < < tn1 < tn < tn+1 = tB . (1)

We can make n quite large, which will divide this sequence into n + 1 infinites-
imally small segments of = (tB tA )/(n + 1). In the limit as n , these
time segments approximate a continuous change in time.
The first question is then, whats happening at each time segment ? The
dynamics are quite simple. The asset is doing one of three things at any time
slice. It is either moving up in price, down in price, or there is no change in
price. Thats it. There is nothing more this system does at each moment than
move up, down, or maintain its price. Everything else is just a scalar of this
movement.
The second question becomes, what makes the asset move up, down, or not
at all in price? We assume as a postulate for this discussion that the assets
change in price, even if that change is zero, is determined by only two types
of external forces acting upon the asset. To generalize, we will call the source
of the force that pushes the asset up in price Buyers and denote the source
generally as U . Likewise, we will call the source of the force that pushes the
asset down in price Sellers and denote this source as D. This theory holds
that there are no other external forces that affect the assets price movement.9
The third question becomes, what are the dynamics of how these sources
affect price movements? The answer to this third question will consume the
remainder of this section.

9 See Rosario N. Mantegna & H. Eugene Stanley, An Introduction to Econo-

physics: Correlations and Complexity in Finance 8 (2000) (Financial markets are sys-
tems in which a large number of traders interact with one another and react to external
information in order to determine the best price for a given item.).

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 6

2.1. Price Displacement

For now, lets place to the side the external forces that drive the assets price
movements and examine only the mechanics of the system itself. If the asset
moves either up or down to varying degrees, we can assume that each price
displacement at the time slice is proportional to some force acting upon the
asset at that time slice, or x( ) F ( ).
This change in price is also affected by some scalar quantity we will call
the assets mass. We do not introduce units of this mass here, so it would
be more rigorous to denote this mass as [m]. However, for the sake of brevity,
we will use the notation m throughout this paper.10 The mass is simply an
inertial coefficient that scales how rapidly the price changes over time. This
translates into a physical characteristic that the mass is the measure of an
assets willingness to move in price from xA . The greater the mass, the
greater the force required by either U or D to change the assets price. We shall
see as a consequence of a later section that the greater the mass the higher the
probability that an assets price displacement will be zero.
From Newtons second law we know that a force is the product of the mass
and the acceleration, the latter being the second time derivative of a position.
If our assumption that F ( ) x( ) is correct, then our equation of motion
should have the feature that the second derivative of some function of the price
displacement is proportional to the same function of just the price displacement.
This is without regard to a mass element. Two functions that have this quality
are the sine and cosine functions, since

d2
sin x = sin x (2)
dx2
and
d2
cos x = cos x. (3)
dx2
This suggests that our equation of motion might take a similar form. If we carry
forward our assumption that F ( ) x( ), we can conjecture that

d2
m [x( )] = k[x( )], (4)
d 2
where k is some constant of the system that is directly proportional to its mass.
The brackets are just to highlight the original price displacement function. Note
that the right-hand side of equation (4) is the price displacement and the left-
hand side is the force acting upon the asset. Therefore, we obtain a possible
expression for our assumption that F ( ) x( ).

10 It is likely more proper to call this mass a density since it ends up measuring the mass

per unit volume. However, since we are dealing only in the single dimension of price, the mass
per unit volume is really just the mass per unit length of the price displacement x. Assuming
that price is measured in units of position where the unit price displacement is xunit = 1.00
point, then m/xunit = m. Therefore, it is appropriate to simply refer to this scalar as m.

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 7

Equation (4) describes the motion at a discrete time slice and is, therefore,
time-independent. But we know from Figure 1 (and experience) that prices
move forward in time, specifically here the elapsed time tA to tB . Therefore,
we must modify equation (4) to reflect the fact that price displacements are
ultimately time functions. With this modification, equation (4) becomes

d2 x(t)
m = kx(t). (5)
dt2
This second-order linear differential equation is that of a harmonic oscillator.11

2.2. Price Displacement Over Time

An assets price displacement is only up or down at any moment (time slice)
, unless there is no price change. Equation (5) gives us a description of these
up-and-down price movements through an elapsed period of time. Lets imagine
the asset as a point particle p that experiences motion subject to some external
force acting upon it.12
Besides k, it is conceivable that there is also some other scalar that is pro-
portional to the assets mass that might contribute to its stopping when trading
ceases (i.e., p does not continue to drift with a constant, uniform velocity that
is a result of the final interaction between U and D). This scalar, lets call it
, must be proportional to the assets velocity v as well as its mass m since
it opposes any current direction of price displacement immediately prior to the
cessation of trading. This leads to a further modification of equation (5):

d2 x(t) dx(t)
m = kx(t) (6)
dt2 dt
where dx(t)/dt v. This additional term is an analog to the dampening term in
a dampened harmonic oscillator. We can re-write this with the terms associated

11 For simplicity, assume going froward that the price displacement is always a function of

time unless otherwise specified; i.e., xj xj (t), j {U, D}, where xj is to be read as the
price displacement in the j direction.
12 It is possible to imagine p as a free particle that moves in a constant, zero potential. As

we shall see, we can most likely arrive at similar results for the probability of price displace-
ments if we assume p is a free particle; however, this description does not appear correct. Lets
imagine that p moves in price as a result of external forces acting upon the asset. If the forces
generated by U and D toss p back and forth like a ping pong ball, there would be a moment
at the closing bell when the volley would stop and whoever got the last hit ineither U or
Dwould give p the push necessary to maintain a constant, uniform velocity and continue
moving in price until the next opening bell when the opposite source gets a chance to hit it
back. In the interim, p would continue to drift with a constant, uniform velocity per Newtons
first law. But we dont see this drift. At the closing bell, trading stops and so do any changes
in price that are not a result of some after-market interference (correction). The particle does
not drift, but stops. When the next opening bell rings, the opening price, which is simply
the price as a result of the first trade, might be different than the previous closing price, but
this is due to U and Ds interactions at that moment, not due to a residual drift from the
previous interaction. For these reasons, we hold that it would be incorrect to regard p as a
free particle.

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 8

with acceleration, velocity, and displacement all on the same side to get

d2 x(t) dx(t)
m 2
+ + kx(t) = 0. (7)
dt dt
To simplify notation and save space going forward, we will use Newtons
dot notation when possible indicating a time derivative. Accordingly, x x
2
(displacement), x dx ddt2x (acceleration).
dt (velocity), and x

2.3. External Forces from Buyers and Sellers

As we can see, equation (7) becomes the equation of motion for the asset
when the external forces acting on the asset have zero net value. There are two
possible causes for this result.
The first cause is that there are no external forces acting on the asset. This
occurs when markets are not open for trading. If U and D are not acting upon
the asset, the price does not move.
The second cause is that there are external forces acting upon the asset, but
they are forces that are equal and opposite in value. In other words, the forces
are balanced. The net result is that these two forces, no matter how great their
individual magnitudes, cancel each other out and there is no resulting change
in price.
So how can we generalize this notion? One way is to account for the external
force in equation (7) as a function of time

m
x + x + kx = F (t). (8)

This way we have more than just the two special cases of no external forces or
balanced external forces. Equation (8) allows us to now explore the dynamics
of unbalanced external forces.
An external force need not come from the same source. In fact, F (t) in
equation (8) is the net external force and, therefore, is the the sum of all the
forces acting upon the asset at any time slice . The theory posited here holds
that the force generated by activities of Buyers U at a time slice creates a
positive price displacement, and the force generated by activities of Sellers D
creates a negative price displacement. It is the sum of these forcesthe sum
of all the forces, not just those generated by some discrete U and Dthat is
responsible for an assets price displacement.
We can begin to think about this more formally by imagining a net external
force over some time slice that is the result of a single pulse from U s activities
and a single pulse from Ds. Lets call this a pulse pair. U and D are not
taking turns interacting with the asset, but are doing so together even though
each source might be exerting forces that do not balance with the other. The
benefit to this approach is that if we can figure out the assets price response
to a single pair of opposing pulses, then we can find the response to millions
and even billions of these pulses by simply summing the single pairs of opposing
pulses.

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 9

We can set up our initial pulse pair quite easily. Imagine that xU is a
time-dependent price displacement resulting from the force FU generated by U .
Likewise, xD results from force FD generated by D.13 From equation (8) we see
that the net force generated by U becomes

m
xU + x U + kxU = FU , (9)

and because Ds force is always in the opposite direction,

m
xD x D kxD = FD . (10)

Adding these together we get

[m xD x D kxD ]
xU + x U + kxU ] + [m
d2 [xU xD ] d[xU xD ]
=m + + k[xU xD ] (11)
dt2 dt
= FU FD .

Therefore, we see that the net external force F = FU FD produces the price
displacement x = xU xD . Of course, this is equivalent to F = FU + (FD )
and x = xU + (xD ). This essentially gives us a superposition of solutions
that continues as we add up more and more pulse pairs. If we think of the
time-dependent net external force as the sum of pulses over the interval t, then
the price displacement x will be the sum of all responses to the individual pulse
pairs. Note that we have succeeded in creating an ostensibly arbitrary function
F (t) out of multiple pulse pairs.
We can accomplish a similar feat by generating an arbitrary function out of
sine and cosine waves. In other words, the force pulses generated by U and D
can amount to a collection of sine and cosine waves generating pulses in slices
of time through constructive interference. This idea is at the heart of Fourier
analysis and is basically a Dirac delta function. It is what represents the mass
of the idealized point particle p discussed in 2.2 previously.14
Specifically, we are looking to describe a system that is driven only by an
external force where that force depends on time as before, only now it depends
on time as a cosine or sine function at an angular frequency , which is the
wave frequency multiplied by 2 radians (one rotation around the unit circle).
Since sine and cosine functions are essentially the same functions with the only
difference being how we define our initial condition tA , we can assign the cosine
function to represent the interactions of U with the asset, and the sine function
to represent the interactions of D with the asset. This is an arbitrary assignment
and it can just as easily be made the other way around. As we shall see, these

13 Assume all forces are functions of time. For simplicity, F F (t) unless specified other-
j j
wise. F0 indicates the critical point of the pulse pair, and F0 = F .
14 See George B. Arfken & Hans J. Weber, Mathematical Methods for Physicists

84 (5th ed., 2000). Again, this is more accurately called the linear mass density of p, but we
shall stick with mass for reasons already discussed.

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 10

assignments will not alter our resultant force. U is the wave generated by U s
trading activities and D is the wave generated by Ds trading activities. As a
result, we get
U = m xU + x U + kxU = F cos(t), (12)
and
D = m
xD + x D + kxD = F sin(t). (13)
Recall that the net external force is a sum of the pulse pair constituents,
so we next must add equations (12) and (13) together. We can combine these
equations by multiplying equation (13) by i = 1 and then taking the sum of
equations (12) and (13). Doing this yields
d2 [xU + ixD ] d[xU + ixD ]
m + + k[xU + ixD ] = F [cos(t) + i sin(t)]. (14)
dt2 dt
Expressed as waves, this becomes = U + iD where is a complex function
of time.
Since, in general, any complex number z can be expressed in the complex
plane with the real- and imaginary-axes < and = as

z = < + i= = |z|(cos + i sin ) (15)

where is the angle between z and the <-axis, it is plausible to regard the
right-hand side of equation (14) as an expression where the net force is the
magnitude of a complex force function, and the angle = t is the frequency
over time in radians. This produces = |F |[cos(t) + i sin(t)].
As a result, we next make two minor modifications. The first is to recognize
that xU + ixD is actually a single, complex, time-dependent function that well
call (t). The second is to recall that, per Eulers formula, cos(t) + i sin(t) =
eit , where e = limn (1 + 1/n)n . We can, therefore, re-write equation (14) as
+ (t)
= m(t) + k(t) = |F |eit . (16)

If we guess a solution of the form

(t) = Aet (17)

we find that
= Aet
(t) (18)
and
= 2 Aet ,
(t) (19)
where A is the complex amplitude of the complex wave function . Substituting
these results into equation (16) we get

= m2 Aet + Aet + kAet = |F |eit , (20)

which we can consolidate as

= (m2 + + k)Aet = |F |eit . (21)

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 11

Figure 2: = |F |[cos(t) + i sin(t)]. The dotted curve is the real cosine function, the dashed
curve is the imaginary sine function, and the solid curve is the complex resultant wave that
is a superposition of the cosine and sine functions. The complex amplitude A is proportional
to the net force. In this Figure, |F |= 1.

Since the terms in parentheses are independent of time, we must conclude that
= i so that the two sides are equal at all times. This means the complex
displacement function (t) has to have the same angular frequency as the
net external force F . From this we can conclude that if a pulse pair (FU , FD )
generates the net sinusoidal force F and angular frequency , the assets price
displacement x will vary as a time-dependent sine or cosine function of the
same angular frequency . We should expect this since the original equation of
motion in equation (5) is linear.
Because = i, we can consolidate equation (21) further

[m(i)2 + (i) + k]A = (m 2 + i + k)A = F. (22)

Thus, the external force in terms of the complex amplitude and mass-related
terms becomes
(m 2 + i + k)A = F. (23)

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 12

If the angular frequency of the net external force is the same as the angular
frequency of the asset (and this might not always be so), then m 2 = k. In this
case, the terms would cancel leaving

F = (i)A. (24)

We can interpret this expression as stating that the dampening term i is

some non-zero term that inversely affects the amplitude. As the dampening
term approaches unity, the amplitude is very close to the net force generated by
the pulse pair. When the dampening term is very large, the amplitude is much
less than the net force. Therefore, the dampening term is inversely proportional
to the amplitude.15
Note that the expression in equation (24) is surprisingly similar to equation
(5) in that it is still a fundamental expression of F x. Our hope is to derive
the resulting price displacement x from the amplitude A, which is a realistic
expectation given that the real part of the amplitude is directly proportional to
the price displacement. But the amplitude in its current form is still complex
and the price displacement is real, so in order to arrive at the assets resulting
price displacement we must further modify A.
Recall that we can write any complex number as

A = |A|ei , (25)

where is the phase shift in the complex plane relative to the net external force.
The complex phase shift is then
   
=-axis |A|sin(t)
= arctan = arctan = arctan[tan(t)]. (26)
<-axis |A|cos(t)

From this, we see that if = 0 then t = , where Z (set of all integers),

and t = 0 when = , which again is some integer multiple of .
The real part of the complex function (t) represents the price displacement
x(t). We can break this down as follows:
h i
<[(t)] = < Aeit = < |A|eit ei = < |A|ei(t+) = |A|cos(t + ). (27)
   

Therefore,
x(t) = |A|cos(t + ). (28)
In other words, the price displacement is a cosine function of time and angular
frequency with an amplitude |A| and a phase shift . From this we can conclude
the following about the direction of x(t) based on the angular frequency, elapsed

15 We do not attempt here to explain the nature of such a dampening term, only its function.

Of course, it is always possible that no dampening term exists, or = 0. In such a case,

m 2 6= k.

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 13

time, and phase shift:

(t + ) = 2

0
(t + ) = 3

0

x(t) 2 (29)
3 5
+
2 < (t + ) < 2
3
2 < (t + ) < 2

If we seek to make the price displacement independent of time (i.e., the price
displacement at the arbitrarily-small time slice ), we can set t = 0 to remove
the temporal term. This leaves us with

x( ) = |A|cos . (30)

But if t = 0, then equals some integer multiple of . This means cos = 1,

which can account for the direction of x( ), i.e., positive implies up and negative
implies down. This means |A| can account for the magnitude of x( ). We can
express this general result as

x( ) = |A( )|. (31)

or
|x( )|= |A( )|. (32)
In other words, the magnitude of the price displacement at each time slice
is the magnitude of the resulting pulse waves amplitude at that time slice.
Recall that the relationship between |A| and the net external force at the same
time slice is dependent on the value of , which in turn is proportional to
the mass of the asset and its velocity.16 We can reasonably assume, therefore,
that our resultant probability calculation must be some function of mass, price
displacement magnitude, and velocity. Having derived the price displacements
modulus at each time slice in equation (32), we next turn to our probability
investigation.

16 It is an interesting observation that the up and down motion of prices can also be described

as a Tusi couple. Imagine a unit circle in the complex plane, only reverse the normal convention
and make the abscissa the imaginary axis and the ordinate the real axis (i.e., rotate it a quarter
turn counterclockwise). Inside this unit circle, construct another circle of 1/2 radius that rolls
clockwise along the internal circumference of the unit circle. The point of contact between the
circles is ei and the center of the interior circle is ei /2. If we trace the point where the two
circles connect when starting the roll at the top we see that this point moves in a straight
line from the top to the bottom and back again as the smaller circle makes its rotation inside
the unit circle. This is the exact real motion of the asset we described as a harmonic oscillator.
Tracking this motion we see that
ei ei() ei + ei
= = cos = <(ei ),
2 2 2
just as we derived in equation (27). Its interesting to think of an assets linear price movement
as potentially being the result of some grander circular motion.

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 14

3. Probabilities

Weve shown that the price displacement of an asset can be expressed as

a proportional result of the net force acting on the asset. Specifically, the
magnitude of the price displacement at any moment is equal to the modulus
of the amplitude of the wave , which is the superposition of U s force wave U
and Ds force wave D .
Yet, there is still more to glean from our approach of using sine and cosine
functions to represent the pulses that generate an external force and, therefore,
a net price displacement. We can use this same information to determine the
probability that an asset will experience a specific price displacement in a specific
direction.
It is here that the theory perhaps makes the most significant contribution by
offering a new method for computing probabilities of price displacements given
only physical analogs for a specific asset. We begin by describing a method to
calculate the probability of the direction of an assets price displacement, and
then introduce a method to calculate the probability of the price displacements
magnitude. In the next section, well combine these two methods.

3.1. Probability of Direction

We can determine the general probability that an assets price displacement
is either positive, negative, or non-existent, based on a cosine function of the
phase shift between wave U carrying force FU and wave D carrying force
FD . The force FD is strongest when the amplitude of the wave D is at its
minimum, and the force FU is strongest when the amplitude of the wave U is at
its maximum. We can determine the directional portion of a price displacement
with the equation 
Pr(xj ) = cos2 , (33)
2
which is the probability of x being in the j direction from xA . We can understand
this best by looking at a few examples.
If U and D are completely in phase, i.e., = 0, then the waves amplitudes
match each other at every point along the wave. When the amplitudes are at
their maximum, U is at its strongestmeaning FU is strongestand D and
FD are at their weakest. In this case, were comparing two vectors (sometimes
called phasors) both in the exact same up direction at the amplitudes max-
imum.17 Employing equation (33), we see that the probability of displacement
in the dominant direction is 1.00, or 100 percent.
 
0
Pr(xU ) = cos2 = cos2 (0) = 1. (34)
2

17 For a history of the concept of phasors, see A. E. A. Ara

ujo & D. A. V. Tonidandel,
Steinmetz and the Concept of Phasor: A Forgotten Story, 24 J. of Control, Automation
& Electrical Sys. 388 (2013).

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 15

If we look at the same waves, still with a phase shift = 0, but this time when
both are at the waves minimum amplitude, we find that FD is at its strongest
and FU is at its weakest. Since the price displacement is a function of the net
external force, we should expect a negative price displacement. The probability
of getting a negative price displacement again comes from equation (33)
 
0
Pr(xD ) = cos2 = cos2 (0) = 1, (35)
2

only this time in the down direction.

Lets next examine the probability at = /2. The waves carrying the
positive and negative forces are now skewed by a quarter rotation of 2. To
find the probability of the price displacement moving in a specific direction, we
again use equation (33), which yields
   2
1  1 1
Pr(xU ) = cos2 = cos2 = = . (36)
2 2 4 2 2

Therefore, the probability that the price displacement will be in the up direction
is 0.50, or 50%. The probability that the price displacement will be in the down
direction is also 0.50, since Pr(xD ) = 1 Pr(xU ) in all but the extreme case we
will examine next.
If = , then both the positive and the negative price forces are at their
strongest and these forces balance (cancel each other out).

Pr(xU ) = Pr(xD ) = cos2 = 02 = 0, (37)
2
meaning there is no probability that there will be any price displacement.
Note that this probability measure does not tell us the magnitude of the
price displacement, only the probability that the displacement will be either
positive or negative, with a zero probability of either occurring in the special
case when = .
So we see that we can compute probabilities from cosine waves, which means
we should also be able to compute probabilities from sine waves just as easily
since both functions have the same hidden information within them. Of course,
we will need to look at more than just the phase shift if we want to find the
probabilities of specific price displacements and not merely whether they will
be positive or negative. To do this, we return to the dynamics responsible for
any price displacement: the pulse pairs generated by U and Ds activities in the
form of sine and cosine waves.

3.2. Probability of Displacement Magnitude

3.2.1. Discrete Probabilities
Recall from equation (11) that F (t) = FU +FD and that FD always moves in
the negative direction while FU always in the positive direction. If we arbitrarily
assign a sine and a cosine wave to each of the waves carrying the forces FU and

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 16

FD as we did in 2.3 equation (14), we can state that U = cos and D =

i sin , where is a shared parameter proportional to the price displacement x.
Note that F = 1 making the probabilities a measure per unit of force.
Since we desire probabilities, we must be careful to at all times maintain
unitarity, which is just a fancy word meaning that probabilities cannot be less
than zero and cannot be more than one. It would be helpful if we could somehow
modify the expression () = cos + i sin to better represent the limits of
unitarity. Just as we made a slight modification to the superposition of these
waves in equation (14) by adding the imaginary unit i, we can make a different
modification to remove the imaginary unit. Doing so turns the resultant force
pulse into a real (non-complex) probability pulse. This is important since
experience tells us that observed probabilities are real (non-complex). We call
this probability pulse a Gaussian function, more commonly known as a bell
curve.
The transformation is rather simple. We can transform the resultant force
pulse into a probability pulse by simply squaring the exponent that is a conse-
quence of Eulers formula
2 2
() = cos + i sin = ei e(i) = e , (38)

since the Gaussian function is defined as

2
2
  
xA 2
|A|exp = |A|exp 2 = e , (39)
2 2
where |A|= 1 is the height ofthe Gaussian form and is its standard deviation,
which as we see is = 1/ 2. Recall that we can consider xA = 0 because
of the homogeneity of the change in price discussed in 2. Note that this
Gaussian function would still result from an expression cos i sin = ei ,
which is a legitimate expression since the the force FD is always negative as
2 2 2
we see in equation (11). However, e(i) = e(i) = e , so the resulting
Gaussian function is the same no matter which expression we choose to use as
our starting point.
Our hope is to find a way to use the Gaussian function to measure the
probability that a specific price displacement x will have the random value X.
To achieve this, it helps to consider some basic examples of discrete probability
to see what they can teach us about where to turn next.
Again, we have to make sure our probability solutions using a Gaussian
function maintain the principle of unitarity. Are there ways that we maintain
unitarity in somewhat obvious measures of probability that might help us think
how this works? Sure there are. In fact, we can look to the most basic problems
of probability that we learned about in grade school, problems such as if I
have a bin that contains 4 blue balls, 3 red balls, and 3 green balls, whats the
probability that I will randomly select a blue ball? The correct answer, of
course, is 0.4 or 40 percent.
But how did we arrive at this answer? One critical step was for us to
divide the number of blue balls by the total number of balls in the bin. To

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 17

find the total number of balls in the bin we summed over all the balls and got
10. We then divided the number of blue balls, 4, by the sum of all balls, 10,
and got our answer. The sum over all the balls acted as a normalizing factor
in calculating the correct probability. This way any probability calculation we
make concerning the 10 balls in the bin will be between 0 and 1, which puts us
in compliance with the principle of unitarity. If we had said the probability of
selecting a blue ball was just 4 without the normalizing factor, we would have
been wildly inaccurate.18
The same is true for normalizing the Gaussian in equation (39). We need
to divide by an equation that gives us a sum of all possible results to get a
normalized probability measure.

1
Figure 3: Plot of Gaussian Function; |A|= 1, xA = 0, and = .
2

If we look at a graph of equation (39) we see that all results on the probability
axis (the ordinate) are positive regardless of whether the input is positive or
negative. The exponent is a parameter that is proportional to the price
displacement. A price displacement can be either positive or negative depending
on whether the assets price ends up higher or lower than its previous closing
price. This means the exponent can take on all values from negative to positive
infinity and still produce a positive probability measure that is no greater than
unity as long as the amplitude factor is a maximum at unity. Consequently, we
can take our first step towards deriving our normalizing term by taking the sum
of all possible values for x, both positive and negative.
As in the balls and bins hypothetical, we divide the main term by the nor-
malizing term to maintain unitarity. For balls and bins, the sum of all balls
was 10. We can either divide 4 by 10, or simply multiply 4 by 101 , which is
the same as multiplying by 1/10. Generalized, this means we must give our
normalizing term the exponent 1.

18 Admittedly, normalizing terms can be a bit more complicated than this simple example

of bins and balls, so the analogy might fail after a certain point. But it helps to give us
an intuition for what we are trying to accomplish with a normalizing term when we want our
end result to be a probability measure with a value in the range [0, 1].

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 18

Just as the normalizing term for balls and bins was the sum of all balls in the
bin, the normalizing term for our generalized equation for the discrete probabil-
ity of the price displacement equaling X is the sum of all price displacements in
the Gaussian. Since the Gaussian is continuous, we integrate instead of taking
a sum of discrete parts. Taking the integral over all possible price displacement
values in the Gaussian means integrating from to +. The result is the
normalizing factor
+ 1
x2
Z  
1
Q= exp 2 dx = . (40)
2 2 2
2
Recall from equation (39) that for e , the standard deviation is = 1/ 2.
Substituting this value of into equation (40) gives the normalizing term
1
Q= . (41)
2

Equation (41) gives us only the proportionate normalizing term. The final term
must also account for any constants or other terms that are not a function of
the price displacement. To be clear, we now have a generalized Gaussian as a
result of the generalized waves U and D , but we must modify this generalized
Gaussian so that it matches specific characteristics of specific assets, for the
probability of the financial asset p1 experiencing the price displacement x is not
necessarily the same as the financial asset p2 experiencing the same.
If we consider what U and D contribute to an asset, we must conclude at
the most general level that they contribute to the total energy in the asset.
There is no evidence that the asset has its own inherent energy, at least not in
the sense that the asset can move in price on its own. In fact, we often see
lightly-traded assets experiencing no price change for relatively long periods of
time. Why is this? Because either (1) U and D are in phase shift = and
the forces cancel each other out; or (2) there are no buyers or sellers interested
in trading the asset for that interval. Without buyers and/or sellers, the asset
does not experience a change in price. Thus, there is nothing inherent to the
asset that can contribute to the change in its price.
Considered this way, we can conclude that the pulse pairs of U and D con-
tribute potential energy V into the system through the superpositon of U and
D . This potential energy causes work to be done on the asset, which results in
its change in price. Through this process, the potential energy V is transformed
into kinetic energy K. But once V = 0 (i.e., no interaction between U and
D), there can be no further price movement without additional introductions of
potential energy into the system through the interactions of U and D. We can,
therefore, conclude that U and D are the sole sources of the total energy E in
the system at any time slice . The total energy at is never more than the
measure of V .
This tells us a lot about the amount of energy in the asset at any single time
slice. Since the only energy is potential and all potential is converted to kinetic

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 19

energy, we can conclude that the total average potential energy and the total
average kinetic energy are the same.
The kinetic energy in a system is defined as
1 mx2
mv 2 = . (42)
2 2t2
It is easy to see that the kinetic energy at the time slice is the sum of all the
net forces over the price displacement x( ), since

mx( )2
Z
mx( ) m
x( ) F
= (x U ( ) x D ( )) = x( ) = x( ) = F dx( ), (43)
2 2 2 2 2 2
where the far left-hand side is the kinetic term and the far right-hand side is
the potential term (sum of the external forces over the change in price).
Since there is no trading immediately before the opening of an exchange,
|FU |= |FD |= 0. The kinetic energy K0 is equal to zero since there is no price
movement. As trading commences, U and D engage in the trading activities that
generate the forces FU and FD , which combine to form the net external force
F . This net force is the catalyst for movement in price as long as |FU |6= |FD |.
At the end of the days session trading ceases. There are no external forces
and, therefore, no work to produce the kinetic energy from price movement.
From this we can state that the total energy in the system at any one time
is the potential energy, which is fixed and equal to the measure of the kinetic
energy. But what is that measure?
The equation for kinetic energy of a harmonic oscillator is found in equation
(42), and the equation for the potential energy is

m 2 x2
V = . (44)
2
The price displacement from equation (30) is x( ) = |A|cos . Since the velocity
v is equivalent to the first derivative of x, we see that v( ) = |A|sin . We
can modify equations (42) and (44) accordingly:

mv 2 m 2 m
K( ) = = (|A|sin ) = |A|2 2 sin2 , (45)
2 2 2
and
m 2 x2 m 2 m
V ( ) = = (|A| cos ) = |A|2 2 cos2 . (46)
2 2 2
The total energy is the sum of the potential and kinetic energies, or E = K + V .
Adding the two previous equation together yields
m 2 2 2 m m
E( ) = |A| sin + |A|2 2 cos2 = |A|2 2 (cos2 + sin2 ). (47)
2 2 2
Recall the trigonometric identity, cos2 + sin2 = 1. Therefore,
1
E( ) = m 2 |A|2 . (48)
2

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 20

When m 2 = k this becomes

1
E( ) = k|A|2 . (49)
2
If the kinetic energy is at a maximum then the potential energy is zero and
if the potential energy is at a maximum then the kinetic energy is zero. The
question of how the energy is partitioned between the kinetic and potential
depends entirely on when one makes the inquiry.
Another way to look at this is to assume we are correct that the asset does
not have its own energy and all energy is introduced into the system as potential
energy resulting from the interactions of U and D. This is the same as claiming
that E = V . If this is true, then E( ) = V ( ), which is the same as saying
1 1
m 2 |A|2 = m 2 |A|2 cos2 . (50)
2 2
This means that = or some integer multiple thereof, which from our previous
discussion occurs when FU and FD are both at their maximum strengths or one
is at a maximum and the other at a minimum. This is consistent with the notion
that E = V since FU = FD occurs when the total energy is distributed evenly
over U and D . In other words, on average, half the energy of an asset is from
U and half from D. When one is at a maximum and the other at a minimum,
all the energy is from either FU or FD and none is from the other. Since this
occurs about one-half of the time for each, we can say that on average the total
energy is, again, distributed evenly over U and D .
We can confirm this by employing an expectation function E[] to calculate
the expected (average) total energy in the asset. Here, E( ) is the total energy
of the asset at any random time slice . Therefore, the average of the system
is E[cos2 ] = E[sin2 ] = 1/2 for any random time slice from the total elapsed
time t = tB tA . As a result, the expected kinetic and potential energies become

m 2 |A|2 m 2 |A|2 2
mvmax
E[K( )] = E[sin2 ] = = (51)
2 4 4
and
m 2 |A|2 m 2 |A|2 2
mvmax
E[V ( )] = E[cos2 ] = = . (52)
2 4 4
This shows that, on average, the kinetic and potential energies of the asset are
the same, each being exactly one half the total energy of the oscillating system.
The total energy density of is then
2
mvmax mv 2
E[E( )] = E[K( )] + E[V ( )] = . (53)
2 2
If we think through the source of this energy from equation (53), we again
confront the fact that it only comes about as a result of the activities of U and
D interacting with the asset. The potential energy is ontologically prior to the
kinetic energy. We can, therefore, conclude that the best description of the asset

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 21

as a system in terms of energy must reference the amount of potential energy

resulting from the forces generated by U and D. The resulting kinetic energy
is only a by-product of this preexisting condition.19
Now that we are clear on the source of the energy and its total measure, we
can try to tie these to a probability measure. Lets sum up where we are so far:
U and D contribute potential energy to the system via their trading activities
with the asset. This change in potential energy with respect to price constitutes
a force. U s force FU is positive and Ds force FD is negative. These forces
propagate through the asset via longitudinal waves we call U and D . Per
the superposition principle, these waves, and the forces they carry, combine at
each time slice along the path from A to B to form a Gaussian function. The
sum of all the Gaussian functions at each time slice is itself a Gaussian. We
can analyze the assets price trajectory from A to B as a combined Gaussian
function, but only after weve used a normalizing term Q to preserve unitarity.
Our next task is to find a way of expressing the trajectory of an asset over
the interval t in terms of the trajectorys initial conditions, namely, price and
its time derivative, velocity. We can achieve this through a Lagrangian, which
is a function of the trajectorys position and velocity. Lets define a Lagrangian
as L(x, v) = K V .
Weve just concluded that the total energy of the resultant wave (the total
energy in the system) is the potential energy V . Since E = K + V and E = V ,
we can assume the kinetic term equal to zero for purposes of describing a system
by its energy. We can use this information to define the Lagrangian as
mx2
L(x, v) = K V = V = . (54)
2t2
Lets define the action S[x] as a functional equivalent to Hamiltons first
principle function, or more basically, the time integral of the Lagrangian along
the path from state A to state B.20 We can express this as
Z tB
S[x] = L(x, v) dt. (55)
tA

Classical mechanics requires this action functional to be stationary for small

variations in all the intermediate variables along the path from A to B.21
It is important to realize that this stationary action is entirely local. If
the asset starts at xA and reaches an arbitrarily-chosen price xN , where N

19 We have to choose one or the other. If we define the kinetic and potential energies by

their 1/4 averages in equations (51) and (52), the Lagrangian L = K V becomes zero. As
we shall see from Schr odingers work, choosing the potential makes the most sense.
20 Hamiltons principle asserts that physical trajectories are paths between x and x , which
A B
are critical points of the action. William R. Hamilton, First Essay on On a General Method
in Dynamics, Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society 95 (1835); William R.
Hamilton, Second Essay on On a General Method in Dynamics, Philosophical Transaction
of the Royal Society 247 (1835).
21 Paul A. M. Dirac, The Lagrangian in Quantum Mechanics, 3 Physikalische Zeitschrift

der Sowjetunion 64, 69 (1933).

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 22

{1, 2, , n}, sometime before reaching xB , there is no way the asset knows
that its destination is xB . Therefore, the stationary action, meaning the first
variation S = 0, cannot be in any sense global. Any global application must
instead be a sum of all the local stationary contributions along the way at each
intermediate state (tN , xN ). The asset travels the total path one stationary
segment at a time. This is why the path for the asset DIA in Figure 1 is not
simply a straight line from the beginning to the end of the week, but is rather
a collection of smaller price movements x( ) that are each themselves critical
points of the functional S[x].
Substituting equation (54) into (55) we get
tB
mx2 mx2
Z
S[x] = 2
dt = . (56)
tA 2t 2t

This conclusion is consistent with the findings of others regarding the La-
grangian. First, the action as a physical quantity has the dimensions [energy]
[time], which breaks down to dimensions of [mass] [distance]2 [time]1 . These
dimensions are consistent with the result in (56). Second, Erwin Schrodinger
points out the following as a well-known principle:22

S[x]
= mv. (57)
x
Schr odingers reference implies that the changes in the price displacement ele-
ments of the action constitute the momentum of the asset in configuration space
at any elapsed time t. In other words, a small change in the action is equivalent
to the quantity of the assets motion over any small change in price. So if we
add up all of the quantity of motion over the total price change from xA to xB
(i.e., the sum of all the changes in price along the path from xA to xB ), we
should get the total action for that price displacement. Integrating both sides
of equation (57) with respect to x gives us

mx2
S[x] = .
2t
From equation (56) we see that
tB
mx2
Z
S[x] = = L(x, v) dt.
2t tA

Differentiating both sides with respect to t yields the Lagrangian

mx2
L(x, v) = , (58)
2t2

22 E. Schr
odinger, An Undulatory Theory of the Mechanics of Atoms and Molecules, 28
Phys. Rev. 1049, 1052 (1926).

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 23

which is identical to what we see in equation (54) for the Lagrangian of the
asset. It appears, therefore, that the Lagrangian is equivalent to the potential
energy introduced externally from U and D, and thus is a function quadratic in
velocity.
Since our primary goal is to find a way to measure the probability of assets
price displacement, we must look to a measure of the systems energy that
is proportional to its price displacement over the interval t. We find such a
measure in equation (56). We can assume the mass of the asset is sufficiently
fixed for our purposes and although t is variable, we are only looking for the price
displacement over a fixed time duration, which means we can hold t constant.
Both the mass and the time interval are elements of the action, and the only
remaining variable is the square of the price displacement, or x2 , which is what
we assumed 2 is proportional to at the beginning of 2.2. Given that the price
displacement is squared, we will be limited to predicting only the magnitude of
the price displacement and not whether it is in the positive or negative direction.
Accepting this limitation, we conjecture that 2 S. Substituting this into
equation (39) gives us eS .
This approach is quite similar to that taken by Paul Dirac and Richard
Feynman in introducing the Lagrangian into quantum mechanics with the form
eiS/h .23 In natural units, h = 1, thus making the primary difference that in
the theory

espoused here, the equation for the superposition of the pulse pairs
is ei S , while for quantum mechanics its analog is eiS . This implies that the
superposition of the pulse pair for each asset is, again, the addition of the
pulse
from U and the pulse from D, although more specifically t = S, or
( S) = cos( S) + i sin( S).24 Note that in this section |F | and |A| both
equal unity. From equation (24), this implies that at least for our probability
calculations, the dampening term i must also equal unity if m 2 = k. This
further implies that 2 = t2 and k = m/t2 .
Substituting 2 S into the proportionate normalizing term in equation
(41) and taking the product of the two terms becomes
eS m
r
QeS = . (59)
2 t
Note also that the proportionate normalizing term in equation (41) is strik-
ingly similar to the normalizing term for the Feynman path integral derived by
Jun Sakurai. The proportionate normalizing term here in terms of the action
becomes r
m
Q= , (60)
4t

23 See Dirac, supra, note21; Feynman,supra, note 1.

24 We believe that [cos( S)]2 [i sin( S)]2 = 1. This can be easily tested by taking the
mean price displacement modulus for any asset |x|, the mean mass m, and fixing a trading
interval at, say, weekly or t = 5. For DIA, the mean price displacement modulus
|x|= 2.15
is p
and the mean mass is approximately m = 0.25. Substituting these for S = |x| m/(2t)

yields [cos( S)]2 [i sin( S)]2 = cos2 ( S) + sin2 ( S) = 1.

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 24

and the Sakurai normalization term Q0 in natural units of h is

r
m
Q0 = . (61)
2it

Besides the factor of 1/ 2, the primary difference is the square root of the
imaginary term.25
Following our logic so far, this should result in the discrete probability mea-
sure of the modulus of the price displacement |x| having the random value X
for any interval t. But when we compare the predictions of this equation with
the historical financial asset data, we see they do not match. However, if we
square all of equation (59), the predicted probabilities match the historical data
within an acceptable margin of error (0.02). Consequently, we conclude
2
eS me2S Se2S
 r
m
Pr(|x|= X) = = = . (62)
2 t 4t 2x2

3.2.2. Continuous Probabilities

The discrete probability calculation tells us the probability that the modulus
of a price displacement for an asset will have some value that we can select
at random. It tells us the probability of the assets price displacement being
exactly that value. Yet, from a practical perspective, one can imagine that it
might be more beneficial to determine the probability of an asset having some
minimum or maximum price displacement, meaning the probability that the
price displacement will be at most or at least some random value X. To solve
this problem we must look to continuous instead of discrete probabilities.
A possible solution for this problem is to get the Gaussian function into the
forms of an error function and its complement. The error function will tell us
the probability that the true price displacement |x| is between zero and some
random value X. The complementary error function will tell us the probability
that the true price displacement |x| is at least the value of some random value
X.
The error function and its complement are appropriate here because of the
following assumptions. We can state that the starting price is xA = 0 since, as
we stated in 2, we are concerned only with the change in, and not the objective,
price. Therefore, we can also assume that the starting price is the mean of the
Gaussian, or xA = . Since we are already working under the assumption
that the standard deviation = 1/ 2, we can conclude that all results are
distributed normally about the mean, and therefore, the error function describes
the probability of the price displacements magnitude |x| falling in the non-
inclusive range (x, x).

25 See J. J. Sakurai & Jim Napolitano, Modern Quantum Mechanics 118 at Eq. (2.6.16)

(2d ed., 2011).

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 25

The error function is defined as

Z |xN |
2 2
erf(|xN |) = et dt (63)
0

and its complement Z

2 2
erfc(|xN |) = et dt, (64)
|xN |

or more simply
erfc(|xN |) = 1 erf(|xN |). (65)
Because of the principle of unitarity, we can only find the probability of the
magnitude of the price displacement |x| being less or greater than X. This is
because the error function and its complement only return positive probability
values for non-negative price displacement values.
Of course, what we just finished describing are the probability calculations
given price displacements that are normally distributed about the mean = 0.
In order for us to use this tool to make our probability predictions concerning
a specific financial asset, we must remember to normalize that asset as we did
with discrete probabilities since the probabilities of the same price displacement
are unique for each financial asset. Whats more, we will also have to square
the normalized result in order for our predictions to match historical data just
as we did with discrete probabilities.
Fortunately, taking the integral of the Gaussian function yields the error
function, but we must still normalize the result as before. Unlike with the
discrete case where we normalized by dividing by the integral from to +,
we must normalize here with an integral from 0 to +. This is because, as just
discussed, we are restricted to non-negative values as evidenced by the ranges
in equations (63) and (64). Using the same approach to normalize as we did in
equation (40) and squaring the results we get
R x S !2  r 2
e dx m
Pr(|x|< X) = R S0
= erf |x| = erf( S)2 , (66)
0
e dx 2t

and
R S !2  r 2
e dx m
Pr(|x| X) = x
R
S
= erfc |x| = erfc( S)2 . (67)
0
e dx 2t

Accordingly, equations (62), (66), and (67) give us the proper methods for
calculating the probabilities associated with any financial asset in terms of its
action.

4. Probability of Displacement Magnitude and Direction

So far we have theorized that it is possible to calculate the direction of an
assets price displacement as a cosine squared function of one half of the phase

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 26

shift. We have also theorized that it is possible to calculate the magnitude of

an assets price displacement with a normalized Gaussian based on the action
of the asset. In this final section, we attempt to bring the two together and
express, hopefully simply, the probability of both an assets price displacement
magnitude and direction.
We are looking for an expression that tells us the probability that a price
displacement is of a certain magnitude and is in a certain direction. A conjunc-
tive probability statement serves this purpose. The probability of event 1 and
event 2 occurring is the product of the probabilities of each event occurring, or
Pr(1 2 ) = Pr(1 ) Pr(2 ). (68)
Here, the first event were concerned with is that the magnitude of an assets
price displacement is equal to some specified value, or 1 := (|x|= X). The
second event is that an assets price displacement is in a specific direction,
or 2 := (xj ), which should be read as the price displacement being in the j
direction where j {U, D}.
From equation (62) we see that
Se2S
Pr(1 ) = Pr(|x|= X) = . (69)
2x2
From equation (33) we see that

Pr(2 ) = Pr(xj ) = cos2 . (70)
2
Written as a conjunctive probability this becomes
 2S 
Se 2
 
Pr(1 2 ) = Pr [(|x|= X) (xj )] = cos . (71)
2x2 2
We can expand this method to calculate the magnitude and direction for con-
tinuous probabilities by making the following substitutions for 1 :

Pr(|x|< X) = erf( S) (72)
and
Pr(|x| X) = erfc( S). (73)

5. Conclusion
It is possible to test this theory using, say, weekly historical data for an asset,
in which case |x| is the difference in points between the closing price at the end
of a weekly interval and the closing price at the end of the immediately-previous
weekly interval, t = 5 days, and m (without units) can be approximated from a
relatively small sample s of the assets weekly intervals using the equation
p  2
1
s
1 X 2t erfc Pr(|xN | XN )
E[m] = . (74)
s q=1 |xN |

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 27

Taking 11 years of historical data for two major ETF Indices, DIA (already
mentioned) and SPDER S&P 500 (ticker symbol: SPY), one can verify this
theory at least to a limited extent. A quick sampling of historical weekly data
employing equation (74) yields m = 0.2458 for DIA and m = 0.2069 for SPY.
Calculating the probability of a price displacements magnitude using only equa-
tion (64) for each week over the 11-year period produces a maximum error of
only 0.02.

Figure 4: Normalized Gaussian for the asset DIA.

Figure 5: Normalized Gaussian for the asset SPY.

One also sees that the mean magnitude of the price displacement for an
asset with a higher mass such as DIA (m = 0.2458, E[|x|] = 2.15 points) is
less than the same measure for an asset with a lower mass such as SPY (m =
0.2069, E[|x|] = 2.38 points). This is consistent with the theory since a larger
mass should result in the probability of the asset having a price displacement
of zero being higher than an asset with a lower mass. This is also supported by

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 28

a graphical representation of each assets Gaussian. Notice that the maximum

probability of x = 0 is higher for DIA (Fig. 4), the asset with the larger mass,
than for SPY (Fig. 5).
These initial findings are promising, but clearly incomplete. It will be inter-
esting to see if this theory is eventually excluded on empirical grounds. On the
other hand, if this theory corresponds to historical data for a significant number
of additional assets, then the results suggest that the probability of an assets
price displacement in a specific direction can be calculated assuming the asset
complies with certain physical laws.

Appendix A.

The following tables assume a statistically constant value for weekly elapsed
time of t = 5 days and a statistically constant value for mass, the units of which
we assume exist but as of yet do not know what to call.

Asset Trading Symbol: DIA with E[m] = 0.2458

Week |x| Pr(|x| X) Pr(|x| X) Pr(|x|= X) Pr(|x|= X)

Predicted Actual Predicted Actual
Nov 19, 2006 0.58 0.81 0.82 0.003 0.004
Nov 26, 2006 0.63 0.79 0.80 0.004 0.002
Dec 03, 2006 0.95 0.69 0.70 0.004 0.004
Dec 10, 2006 1.15 0.64 0.63 0.004 0.002
Dec 17, 2006 0.97 0.69 0.69 0.004 0.004
Dec 24, 2006 1.23 0.62 0.61 0.004 0.004
Dec 31, 2006 0.67 0.78 0.78 0.004 0.002
Jan 07, 2007 1.92 0.45 0.45 0.003 0.003
Jan 14, 2007 0.11 0.96 0.96 0.004 0.004

[11 YEARS OF DATA ANALYSIS AVAILABLE IN EXCEL FOR-

MAT]

Asset Trading Symbol: SPY with E[m] = 0.2069

Week |x| Pr(|x| X) Pr(|x| X) Pr(|x|= X) Pr(|x|= X)

Predicted Actual Predicted Actual
Jan 22, 2006 2.57 0.36 0.36 0.003 0.002
Jan 29, 2006 2.27 0.42 0.41 0.003 0.003
Feb 05, 2006 0.37 0.88 0.88 0.003 0.002
Feb 12, 2006 2.17 0.43 0.43 0.003 0.002
Feb 19, 2006 0.60 0.82 0.82 0.003 0.002
Feb 26, 2006 0.65 0.80 0.81 0.003 0.003
Mar 05, 2006 0.17 0.95 0.94 0.003 0.003
Mar 12, 2006 2.03 0.46 0.47 0.003 0.003

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]

 J. T. MANHIRE Predicting Stock Market Prices 29

[11 YEARS OF DATA ANALYSIS AVAILABLE IN EXCEL FOR-

MAT]

[Submitted to Econophysics Colloquium, July 2017.]