[General] standing waves

Roychoudhuri, Chandra chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu
Thu Mar 31 08:59:13 PDT 2016


Hodge: I am afraid, we are on non-coincident parallel paths.
We may never agree because of the fundamental differences in our personal logics in our thinking neural networks. Nonetheless, here is my position described a bit differently.

“Wave” by English definition and by virtue of the working wave equations, imply waves are perpetually propagating linear excitations of some parent tension field; whose intrinsic tension-restoration properties dictate the medium-dependent fixed velocity.
    When you mathematically sum the two oppositely propagating wave amplitudes of same frequency, the mathematical plots of the amplitudes will show stationary crests and troughs. But, the same mathematical equations also imply that the individual wave are still propagating through each other as if the other waves is absent. This is Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW).

Particles are not waves; they are localized harmonic oscillations of some form. They cannot be represented by wave equation like that of Maxwell. Schrodinger’s “wave” equation does not represent propagating waves. It represents harmonic excitations (excitations) of the interactants.

A harmonically oscillating pendulum is not a wave; but it is also mathematically expressed by the same exponential harmonic function. This does not make the pendulum (or, an elementary particle) a propagating wave. A propagating wave equation requires the second derivative of both space and time. They represent temporal restoration of the “spatial displacement” at a fixed spatial location; while the original displacement moves on  in TIME to the next spatial position; and so on. Schrodinger “Psi” and the follow on “Psi*Psi” can take place at the same spatial location within our detector. That is why I do not use the term “wave equation” developed by Schrodinger.

This is another profoundly important conundrum (contradiction) built into our interpretation philosophy. They screw up our interpretative brains because, the math models the observable data without facilitating the visualization of the ongoing invisible interaction processes. This last part is critically important for us to keep ourselves discovering the realities of nature; rather than declaring there are no realities.

“Do not try to visualize where the track of an electron is inside an atom!” Something like this has been admonished by one of the fathers of QM theory. My position is exactly opposite. Do try to visualize the electron track. We will find many new physics of nature through such attempts, including the structure of an electron, as this group has been progressing towards this goal. Otherwise, our enquiring brain will start de-evolving and never find the realities of nature!

Chandra.
PS:  Regarding your comment, “There must be a means to recover the energy or the process decays.” I am confused regarding what you are implying. The observed rules of “Conservation of Energy” in all fields of science have been well established. However, we can rarely succeed in harnessing all the products of an interaction 100%. This is also well demonstrated.
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Hodge John
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 2:43 PM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: [General] standing waves

Chandra:
Yes, there are others that seem to use “standing waves” and the physics of standing waves in an propagating wave scenario. This is a theory no-no in the sense it is a redefinition of terms during the argument.
Note that standing waves may be obtained by having a single source and reflection back to the source. I suggest this occurs in the Transnational Interpretation of QM. The reverse time wave can be the reflected wave of a standing wave if the wave speed is high enough. Thus, as you note, the $\psi$ and $\psi^*$ produce the observable. A standing wave analysis can produce an observable, but it must to be a true standing wave (common source) and not a propagating wave.

The question of how emitted energy cannot be exhausted remains. There must be a means to recover the energy or the process decays.

Hodge
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160331/99e69ed3/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list