Your question is unclear, check you grammer so it can be understood properly.
The 2.73 degree cosmic background radiation has been shown to act similar to an ether; maybe this will aid you as you reframe your question.
Thank you, Mr. Aton.
You are the only one who responded to my poor English question.
Yor are right. My question was a jumble of three questions.
Q1. How will a eigenstate wave function behave when the system is accelarated and deccelerated.
I already know the answer. If you would like to know my answer, I may publish my paper on this blog.
The answer is simple, but usual textbooks do not even touch this topic.
Q2. In the theory of special relativity, how will a quantum mechanical wave function of a system
moving with a constant velocity look like from a people on a stationary ground? Will it be compressed
wave function, just like a moving object?
Q3. This is the most important question I would like to know the answer from the experts.
Whenever there is a physical viblation, there is a physical object that is literally viblating.
When guitar is enamating a sound, its string and surrounding atmospher are viblating.
The problem that I wish to know is the same! Usally a quantum mechanical stationary wave function is
viblating in accordance with the factor exp(-iEt/h). Then, what is viblating? For convenience, I called
it the "ether for wave fucntion."
Perhaps your suggestion of cosmic background radition may have relation to my Q3, I suppose.
I do not have ever heard such a theory that cosmic radiation has to do with the quantum mechanical wave function.
Could you explain in more detailed way? Usual knowledge tells us that the cosmic radiation is simply a kind of electromagnetic waves. Is this wrong?
By the way, I have read your free paper which will explain the periodic table.
Your paper is difficult to understand. But figures are understandable.
Is your theory capable to be expanded to the extent of the heaviest nuclear species completely?
Is your theory capable to explain nuclear unstability, that is, the radioactivity, or half life?
Geometrical explanation seems static. I would rather like a dynamic picture of the inner world of a nucleus.
Thanks a lot again for responding!
October 9, 20:30
I am now reading a book "The Quantum Story" written by Jim Baggot published from Oxford University Press.
If you have interest, then please open page 38, and read lines 20-24 of that book.
"De Boglie was able to show that the velocity of such matter wave would be greater than the speed of light-forbidden in Einstein's special theory of relativity-and could not therefore be waves carrying energy. He therefore concluded that the matter wave: ' represents a spatial distribution of phase, that is to say, it is a "phase wave".'
What a surprise! The De Bloglie wave runs faster than the speed of light!
Did you know? Did you know?
If it is really true, then I reconsider the phenomenon of the reduction of wave packet.
Does the super-speed of the matter wave have to do with the quantum non-locality?
Do you know the name of Bell's inequality?
Do you know the names of the experimentors of Aspect and Gissin?
I have ever met a notions of phese velocity and group velocity, but I do not know what does "phase wave" mean.
I wonder the very essence of the usual wave function that obeys the Schroedinger equaqtion.
What is the Schroedinger equation descrbing at all?
A man marching and demonstrating having a placard on which is written "Qunatum Mechanics is Everything!"
February 16, 2013
This is the original author of this bolg again, I am sorry for appearing many times.
Forgive me my stupid ego.
I want to show you my own answer to my quetion Q1.
It is written in the file attached, please open.
Thank you, Sirs!
Pithecantropus Japonicus who is, in a cave, tinkering a key board of a computer
March 12, 2013