<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Hodge: I am afraid, we are on non-coincident parallel paths.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">“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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> 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).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">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.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">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.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">“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!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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.<o:p></o:p></span></a></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Hodge John<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 30, 2016 2:43 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [General] standing waves<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym18_1_1459363378947_2643">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">Chandra:</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym18_1_1459363378947_2645">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">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. </span>
<span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym18_1_1459363378947_2647">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">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.
</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym18_1_1459363378947_2649">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym18_1_1459363378947_2651">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">The question of how emitted energy cannot be exhausted remains. There must be a means to recover the energy or the process decays.
</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym18_1_1459363378947_2653">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Hodge</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>