In a previous note (1) we argued that the translational generator d/dx being associated with momentum (px) already appears in Fermat’s principle for both reflection and refraction. We suggested that d/dx is linked to an invariant spatial variable which in turn is associated with momentum conservation in the same direction. This may be written as: d/dx (px)x = (px). Alternatively (px)x = -i ln(exp(i px x) ) with exp(i px x) being a directional probability distribution (i.e. values for p and -p differ) and ln(exp(i px x)) being of the form of information in information theory. One may then ask: How does one link average momentum in the case of a bound state with a potential V(x)? In general, such a bound system is solved using the time-independent Schrodinger equation i.e. conservation of energy using d/dx twice and a p(rms) not a p average obtain from -id/dx ln(W) = p(x) where W(x) is the wavefunction and pave= W dW/dx. After all, the form exp(i (px) x) may be obtained from considerations of d/dx and p, not energy conservation (even though E=pc for light). We argue that exp(ipx) is a directional probability. If both p and -p are present then: p exp(ipx) -p exp(-ipx) is not zero because the spatial probability distinguishes between the two. Only by multiplying exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx) does one remove motion. If p and -p are present, however, as in an OR situation, i.e. exp(ipx) + exp(-ipx), then it is as if the particle is bound or localized and P(p,x)+P(-p,x) = C cos(px). We consider the two components of exp(ipx) in: Integral dx cos(px) sin(px). Why does this equal 0 from a momentum perspective? sin(px) = 1/p d/dx cos(px). Thus the integral is: Integral dx { P(p)+P(-p)} momentum(P(p)+P(-p)) } or the average momentum at x. Overall the particle is bound and so there can be no momentum globally so the integral must be zero and hence cos(px) and sin(px) must be orthogonal over a period even though they represent the same p value. This same idea holds for a linear combination of {P(p,x)+P(-p,x)} sums for different p’s. (We consider overall positive or negative parity.) Thus: Integral dx W dW/dx = 0 holds for even-odd reasons, but also for the physical overall zero momentum. Even with a potential present: -i WW d/dx ln(W) = Pave(x). In other words, bound state quantum mechanics is linked to W dW/dx integrating to 0 even though there are positive and negative pockets at various x values. This follows from the orthogonality of cos(px) and sin(px) over a wavelength from a free particle which conserves momentum. This result holds for any V(x) even though V(x) fixes the coefficients of the linear combination of Sum over p a(p) {P(p,x)+P(-p,x)} using energy considerations. Zero average momentum follows from momentum conservation found in exp(i (px) x). In fact we have argued that the unusual probability wave form exp(i (px) x) exists to ensure constant momentum (momentum conservation) for a free particle. We argue that considering average momentum equal to 0 overall leads to ideas of zero point energy, orthogonal energy states and a crest/trough pattern without considering the time-independent Schrodinger equation which is based on energy conservation. Thus we argue that ideas related to d/dx and momentum carry over from Fermat’s principle into a bound quantum state and its average momentum which is often not considered.
In a previous note (1) we argued that the translational generator d/dx being associated with momentum (px) already appears in Fermat’s principle for both reflection and refraction. We suggested that d/dx is linked to an invariant spatial variable which in turn is associated with momentum conservation in the same direction. This may be written as: d/dx (px)x = (px). Alternatively (px)x = -i ln(exp(i px x) ) with exp(i px x) being a directional probability distribution (i.e. values for p and -p differ) and ln(exp(i px x)) being of the form of information in information theory. One may then ask: How does one link average momentum in the case of a bound state with a potential V(x)? In general, such a bound system is solved using the time-independent Schrodinger equation i.e. conservation of energy using d/dx twice and a p(rms) not a p average obtain from -id/dx ln(W) = p(x) where W(x) is the wavefunction and pave= W dW/dx. After all, the form exp(i (px) x) may be obtained from considerations of d/dx and p, not energy conservation (even though E=pc for light). We argue that exp(ipx) is a directional probability. If both p and -p are present then: p exp(ipx) -p exp(-ipx) is not zero because the spatial probability distinguishes between the two. Only by multiplying exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx) does one remove motion. If p and -p are present, however, as in an OR situation, i.e. exp(ipx) + exp(-ipx), then it is as if the particle is bound or localized and P(p,x)+P(-p,x) = C cos(px). We consider the two components of exp(ipx) in: Integral dx cos(px) sin(px). Why does this equal 0 from a momentum perspective? sin(px) = 1/p d/dx cos(px). Thus the integral is: Integral dx { P(p)+P(-p)} momentum(P(p)+P(-p)) } or the average momentum at x. Overall the particle is bound and so there can be no momentum globally so the integral must be zero and hence cos(px) and sin(px) must be orthogonal over a period even though they represent the same p value. This same idea holds for a linear combination of {P(p,x)+P(-p,x)} sums for different p’s. (We consider overall positive or negative parity.) Thus: Integral dx W dW/dx = 0 holds for even-odd reasons, but also for the physical overall zero momentum. Even with a potential present: -i WW d/dx ln(W) = Pave(x). In other words, bound state quantum mechanics is linked to W dW/dx integrating to 0 even though there are positive and negative pockets at various x values. This follows from the orthogonality of cos(px) and sin(px) over a wavelength from a free particle which conserves momentum. This result holds for any V(x) even though V(x) fixes the coefficients of the linear combination of Sum over p a(p) {P(p,x)+P(-p,x)} using energy considerations. Zero average momentum follows from momentum conservation found in exp(i (px) x). In fact we have argued that the unusual probability wave form exp(i (px) x) exists to ensure constant momentum (momentum conservation) for a free particle. We argue that considering average momentum equal to 0 overall leads to ideas of zero point energy, orthogonal energy states and a crest/trough pattern without considering the time-independent Schrodinger equation which is based on energy conservation. Thus we argue that ideas related to d/dx and momentum carry over from Fermat’s principle into a bound quantum state and its average momentum which is often not considered.
In a classical bound state, conservation of energy: p(x)p(x)/2m + V(x) = E holds for all x. Examined in a statistical sense, one may consider each constant dx to have a probability density proportional to dt(x) where v(x)=velocity =dx/ dt(x). Thus the particle is followed in time. In quantum mechanics, even for a free particle exp(ipx), there exists a wavelength hbar/p. Within this region one cannot follow the particle in time. In fact, there are two probability distributions cos(px) and the shifted sin(px). The two dimensional nature of exp(ipx) is required to describe the direction of motion. There exists a mathematical abstraction or average which holds for any x within the wavelength and yields the classical x= p/m t. Thus there is a duality, but within a wavelength one cannot follow the particle exactly using x=p/m t. Rather there is no time and one thinks of probabilities to be at one x or another. The operator -id/dx yields the abstracted or average momentum at any x and (-id/dx)(-id/dx) average pp if one divides by probability. In other words: (-id/dx) exp(ipx)/ exp(ipx) = p and (-id/dx) (-id/dx) exp(ipx) / exp(ipx) = pp. These then apply to any x point. For a bound state, exp(ipx) is replaced with W(x)= Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). Thus p and -p are included together. From a statistical point of view this is fine because a quantum bound state is described in terms of energy conservation (time-independent Schrodinger equation). Unlike the classical case, the probabilities of p and -p differ, i.e. exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx). The sum exp(ipx)+exp(-ipx) yields cos(px) which is the resolution probability distribution. Taking -d/dx d/dx of W(x) and then dividing by W(x) yields the average kinetic energy at any x within the wavelength. In other words this is the average kinetic energy which matches the classical result for any energy level. As a result, prms(x)prms(x)/2m + V(x) = En holds for any quantum level, but prms(x) is an rms average value which bypasses wave structure. That is why the exp(ipx) for p,-p and -id/dx must be used to calculate average quantities within a wavelength. Many different p,-p combinations are needed so that at each x within a wavelength the correct average kinetic energy value appears. Now consider a high energy level and choose a fixed dx length to represent a tiny region in the system, a cutoff for which there is no further resolution. p(x) is constant within this region. If hbar/ prms(x) <= dx, the wave structure of quantum mechanics does not play a role. (Note that for an oscillator, W(x) is a set of crests and troughs with different heights and widths.) As a result, there is no need for d/dx acting on W(x) to describe average kinetic energy within dx. The average kinetic energy is prms(x)prms(x)/2m and dx is treated like a point. Only if exp(ipx) is used does -id/dx yield the proper classical result. (An alternative scenario is that d/dx acting on a function divided by the function yields the same result as acting on exp(ipx) divided by exp(ipx) e.g. -d/dx d/dx cos(px)/cos(px) = -d/dx d/dx exp(ipx) / exp(ipx). If one has the quantum kinetic energy expression -1/2m d/dx dW/dx / W ((1)) and considers one momentum, namely prms(x), and uses W(x)= cos( prms(x) x), then with prms(x) constant at x, ((1)) yields prms(x) prms(x)/ 2m. Thus d/dx has not broken down even though it does not describe motion within dx which is now a point. A problem arises, however, if one considers Wn(x)= Wn1(x)Wn2(x) as this yields an equation containing dW1/dx dW2/dx/ (W1W2). Then the above procedure yields: dW1/dx/W1 (prms(x) sin(prms(x) x) / cos(prms(x) x). This does not match the classical value. Furthermore, dW2/dx/ W2 contains +prms(x) and -prms(x) with different weights while a classical scenario is -pP(-p,x) + pP(p,x) = 0 because P(-p,x)=P(p,x) while quantum mechanically it doesn’t. We analyze this situation and conclude that d/dx breaks down/ does not apply in the classical limit because it is used to calculate average values within a wavelength only. It only “works” if the effect of the derivative(s) on a function divided by the function is the same as the effect on exp(ipx) divided by exp(ipx). If a wavelength fits within dx, there is no need to calculate values at any lower x level and d/dx is not needed. In fact, there is a single prms(x) value in dx and the average time links different dx’s so that one follows the particle (on average in the sense that one ignores structure within each x) by x(t). As a practical consequence, using -id/dx together with the wavefunction W(x) can lead to problems in the classical limit because d/dx does apply. In short, using -id/dx operating on Wn(x) divided by Wn(x) leads to issues unless it produces the same effect as acting on exp(ipx) divided by exp(ipx).
In a previous note (1) we argued that Fermat’s principle of least time is present in the photon wave dispersion relationship E=pc which may be written as 0 = -Et+px with x/t=c. We argued that a nonzero constant = -Et+px applies to a free particle with rest mass, but that Fermat’s principle is still present. Furthemore the form -Et + px implies the existence of a frequency and wavelength for both a photon and free particle with rest mass. (Interestingly -Et+px is both the free particle relativistic action -mo t sqrt(1-vv/cc) and nonrelativistic .5mo t vv with c=1 and v=x/t. ) Fermat’s principle implies that d/dx → momentum (x component) as discussed in(1). An eigenfunction exp(ipx) demonstraties wave behaviour of a free particle with rest mass. In (1) we argued that if one knocks out a quantum bound particle it will be in a state exp(ipx). Thus this wave type information should also be included in the bound state so wepostulated a bound state represented by W(x) = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) (i.e. a wavefunction) such that the Fermat result d/dx → p still holds. In this note we wish to consider the idea of a statistical equilibrium and the concept of a constant energy. In the case of refraction it seems a complicated statistical scattering process occurs which slows down the motion of a photon i.e. c changes to c/n where n is the index of refraction. Thus one piece of information, namely n, describes the complicated statistical process as in thermodynamics. If E (energy) remains constant p→ pn. Thus in this complicated statistical scenario a cos(-Et+pn x) electric field pattern remains but p → pn i.e the wavelength has changed. The idea of a constant energy may even be applied to light scattering from a mirror moving with a constant v in the negative y direction. The actual energy and momentum of the incident and reflected rays are not equal, but for E1 special = p1 v(relative 1) and E2 special = p2 v(relative 2) with v(relative 1) = c- vcos(A) and v(relative 2)= c+vcos(B) where A and B are angles of incidence and reflection measured with respect to the y axis. E1 special t=E2 special. In this note we retain the idea that a particle knocked from a quantum single particle bound state is described by exp(ipx) in keeping with Femat’s principle. We consider the bound state to still have waves as Fermat’s principle suggests d/dx →p, but they cannot be of the same height and width because of the changing value of V(x) with x (i.e. the potential). According to Newton’s law one has conservation of energy i.e. pp/2m + V(x) = E, but we consider this to apply to a p (rms) = m v(rms) in the Schrodinger equation. If the forms exp(ipx)’s are to be retained within the bound quantum state (i.e. this information is not lost) and one has a constant E (energy) then the potential must be modified statistically to allow for the idea of conservation of energy for each p, but must also represent a constant potential to retain the form of exp(ipx). Thus in short the Schrodinger equation becomes a weighted sum of exp(i p(j) x) functions with each having a different wavelength (like refraction), but interacting with different constant potentials to ensure that E remains constant for each p(j). In other words we think of a potential V(x) as a statistical set of refraction discontinuities i.e. impulses which produce exp(ipx)’s which are like light moving through a homogeneous medium i.e. a momentum eigenstates. For this to happen, however, the various exp(ipx)’s need to combine with V(x) = Sum over k Vk exp(ikx) terms to create a Vmodified(p) exp(ipx) where Vmodiied(p) is a constant because each free particle exp(ipx) is associated with a different effective potential and a kinetic energy pp/2m, but the same energy En. We argue that this results from applying ideas of Femat’s principle to a particle with rest mass. Newton’s picture of a particle accelerating i.e. x(t) emerges if one considers rms values for which all information of exp(ipx) and crests/troughs of W(x) are ignored. In particular, W(x)=wavefunction may have crests and troughs, but -1/2m d/dx dW/dx/ W = KE(x) Newton which shows no crests or troughs, but simply balances V(x) in KE(x)+V(x) = E.
It is sometimes stated in the literature (1) that quantum mechanics is based on conditional probabilities. If this is the case, one would expect such conditional probabilities to appear in a single particle bound state. A free quantum particle is associated with a probability to interact of exp(ipx) (linked to 2-slit interference, 1-D reflection-refraction at an n1-n2 junction etc), but the kinetic energy and momentum are pp/2m (nonrelativistic) and p at all x even though each x has a different phase according to exp(ipx). The momentum is p at x, but the probability for an impulse hit at x is not the same even though its modulus is. When different probabilities exp(ipx) add in an OR situation, this leads to a spatial pattern which no longer has a modulus of 1, i.e. translational invariance is broken. Such a pattern also occurs for a single particle bound state W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). W(x) can have 0 points, but the average kinetic energy -1/2m d/dx dW/dx / W is not 0 at such a point. One has, on average (a statistical calculation), no average interaction at such an x point. One might ask why this should have anything to do with average kinetic energy? If one writes a conservation law: KEave(x) + V(x) = 0, then one considers kinetic energy interacting with potential energy. If there is no interaction at some x point for a given p (not W(x) on average), then it should not be part of the conservation of energy at this point. One is only interested in kinetic energy which interacts with potential energy at each x point. Thus, a(p) exp(ipx) + a(-p) exp(-ipx) (with a(p)=a(-p)) may have a 0 point at some x and so it does not have an average interaction at such a point, i.e. pp/2m (a(p)exp(ipx) + a(-p)exp(-ipx)) = 0. As a result, in a bound state, one considers kinetic energy per p, -p multiplied by the average probability (p, -p). Different a(p)exp(ipx) + a(-p)exp(-ipx) (a(p)=a(-p)) weights in this average picture indicate the extent to which the particle interacts. This idea holds for a single p,-p pair, but one must normalize over all such pairs, leading to the idea of a conditional probability. Given that hbar/p must be “created physically” in space so to speak, one must have interaction probability which creates this physical situation even in cos(px)+ i sin(px). This leads to the idea of interaction probability being 0, positive, but <1, or even negative and it is the interaction which allows one to consider conservation of energy with a potential V(x) in the first place. As a result, one cannot include a full pp/2m if there is negative, 0 or only particle interaction. Thus, pp/2m is multiplied by 2 a(p)cos(px) /W(x) for a(p)=a(-p).
It was argued in (1) that Fermat’s least time principle for light (in a two dimensional (x,y) reflection or refraction scenario) minimizes time by actually varying it in terms of a spatially invariant variable i.e. x (i.e. taking d/dx) with the flat face of the mirror/medium along the x axis at y=0. This is equivalent to conserving momentum in the x direction. Thus d/dx is associated with (px) which may be associated with the Lorentz invariant -Et+p dot r. In other words, d/dx emerges as a momentum operator (up to a factor) and d/dt as an energy operator, yet both are generators in time and space linked with invariance of constant values i.e. conservation. Furthermore an eigenvalue equation: -id/dx exp(ipx) = p exp(ipx) and id/dt exp(-iEt) = E exp(-iEt) automatically (by the nature of eigenvalue) leads to orthogonal eigenfunctions linked to conservation of energy and momentum. In special relativity rest mass mo represents a constant in time which may exist at any point x. In fact, it is often thought of as a point, for example a center of mass point. The actual object with mo, however, may be large with moving parts all within a “container”. What then does x,t in -Et+px mean for constant E,p? It seems that x,t are center-of-mass coordinates for the overall system. We argued in previous notes that 1/p is proportional to a wavelength so for p→0, mo may be at any x point with the same probability. Within the system with moving parts, however, there is motion and an x scale for each moving piece. For a single particle bound system, there is a single energy at each x which is like mo and a potential V(x) and KE(x). In (2) we argued that given the free particle relationship -EE+pp= -momo (c=1) one may retain a constant E value by replacing E with E-V(x) and pp with <pp> (and not ). How do the probabilities appear? They are linked to -Et+px with frequency hbar/E and wavelength hbar/p and are specifically manifested by exp(-iEt) and exp(ipx). For and <pp> we use spatial probabilities i.e. W(x) = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). Each exp(ipx) is linked to the operator -id/dx and invariance, but pp is linked with the operator -d/dx d/dx and one does not use an eigenfunction of this operator. Thus the notion of conservation of momentum is retained in the exp(ipx)s and their linear combination W(x) yields a function such that an average kinetic energy exists at each x point i.e KE(x)=KEclassical = -1/2m d/dx dW/dx / W. This is combined with a V(x) to ensure constant E at each x point i.e. create a kind of mo piece linked with id/dt. We argue that E being constant at each x is a statistical equilibrium type of result. Each exp(ipx) is associated with an average motion of x=p/m t and given that exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx) are included, there is also the notion of which is positive and negative in different regions and integrates to 0. prms(x) from <pp> becomes the classical p(x). Thus bound state quantum mechanics seems to be based on a free particle treatment which follows from the special relativistic Lorentz invariants -EE+pp=-momo and -Et+px = constant, directly linked to conservation ideas. Conservation of momentum of an internal bound particle is maintained through exp(ipx), while <pp> by itself is not linked with conservation as there is no eigenstate, but is combined with a V(x) to create a constant En linked with the entire system (and P=0) which then becomes associated with invariance in time and the generator id/dt. In this note, we try to argue that the notion of W*(x)W(x) (where W(x)=wavefunction= Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx)) is spatial density and P(p)=a*(p)a(p) based on spatial invariance and conservation of momentum for a single particle bound state even though there seems to be no spatial invariance or notion of conservation of momentum in W(x) which is simply a solution of the time-independent Schrodinger equation. One may move from a W(x) scenario (i.e. Schrodinger equation) to a W*(x)W(x) picture, by trying to “pick out” invariant (p only terms) using the orthogonality of the exp(ipx)s. Thus W*(x)W(x) (spatial density) emerges naturally in this approach.
In part I we argued that Newton’s first law implies that constant momentum (i.e. momentum conservation) is associated with spatial invariance i.e. a lack of information in a certain direction. This is equivalent to stating there exists no force in that direction. We argued that one may apply the generator for translation in the spatial direction i.e. d/dx for x and apply it to a function f(x) such that df(x)/dx = (px). The simplest form is f(x)= (px)x. We also argued that it is precisely this function which appears in Fermat’s least time principle because time = distance/speed and one may multiply time by |p| = momentum magnitude. Given that momentum and displacement are parallel vectors for a light ray, p dot r = p distance = (px)x + (py)y for a two dimensional problem (e.g. reflection or refraction). “Distance d” is the key function to use because dd= xx + yy implies that for fixed y, d d/dx = x/d = sin(theta1) (angle measured from y axis) so p d d/dx = (px) which is a conserved quantity if x is invariant. Thus conservation of momentum for two rays is equivalent to extremization. Extremization, we argue, suggests there may be a built-in physical mechanism which allows a free particle to correct itself if perturbed slightly just like a Maxwell-Boltzmann gas which extremizes entropy subject to constant average energy does. This built-in mechanism should be linked to motion in space. Writing (px)x as ln(exp(ipx), one not only obtains an eigenvalue equation i.e. -d/dx exp(i (px) x) = (px) exp(i px x), but the notion of a relative change arises if exp(i px x) is interpreted as a kind of probability. A relative change is natural because an absolute one ignores the idea that probability may differ with x even though (px) is constant. Thus from the idea of invariance in space found in Newton’s first law, which is equivalent to conservation of momentum in that direction, the equation d/dx f(x) = (px) leads directly to -id/dx exp(i px x) = (px) exp(ipx x) where exp(i px x) represents a physical probability type of wave which stablilizes the constant (px) motion because this motion is equivalent to extremizing time or |p| time or p dot r / speed of light in Fermat’s principle. In other words, the quantum mechanics of a free particle is associated with stabilizing wave behaviour exp(ipx x) which was not seen experimentally at the time of Newton or Fermat, but seems to be part of their formalisms, with Fermat’s principle derivable from Newton’s first law.
In classical physics, a particle traveling to the right is the mirror image of one traveling to the left. In terms of a spatial density (the time spent in each constant dx), the value is the same, as is the energy. A similar notion of such a spatial invariance is in the classical conservation of energy equation for a bound particle: p(x)p(x)/2m + V(x) = E. Quantum mechanics seems to be different because exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx) are distinctly different spatial probabilities, i.e. they are dynamic. It is not just that case that a particle moves to the right for exp(ipx) and to the left for exp(-ipx). The impulse hit probabilities (represented by exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx)) are distinctly different. If one wishes to create an OR situation and write: W(x) = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx) and use this in a conservation of energy equation, then simply including only positive or negative p values in W(x) leads to a complex average kinetic energy -1/2m d/dx dW/dx / W which cannot be used with V(x) and E. Furthermore, W_ (only negative p) and W+ (only positive p) values do not yield the same average kinetic energy. Fortunately, given that this is a statistical average for a localized object (somewhat analogous to a gas), one may combine W+ + W- and obtain a real kinetic energy. We have argued in previous notes that there exists a quantum-classical duality. For example, for a free particle one has two independent notions. One is x=vt which describes the center-of-mass of the particle. We take this to represent a state description which treats v and -v as mirror images. exp(ipx), on the other hand, represents probabilistic impulse hits and does not define the state by itself, we argue, only its interactions. Interactions are physical and define what happens in an interacting system. One may, however, measure a system, i.e interact with exp(ipx), and this should define a measurement state ( a second state ensemble average). For example, exp(ipx)exp(-ipx) = 1 which is equivalent to the constant dt in each dx associated with x=vt. Thus, the two states coincide, but exp(ipx)exp(-ipx) means that one may place the 2-slit apparatus at any x point and is not about the center-of-mass, as x=vt is. In some cases, the two states are quite different. W*(x)W(x) represents an interaction state, but vrms(x) from .5mvrms(x)vrms(x) = -1/2m d/dx dW/dx / W represents a center-of-mass state description. (Note: in these cases a state means an average state, i.e. an average over many ensemble entries.) If one takes W*(x)W(x) and integrates over x, then interference terms vanish and one obtains a classical counting of distinct p value states with their weight a*(p)a(p).This, we argue, leads to the notion of orthogonality of probabilities. In classical probability, there is no such notion, but there is the notion of AND (multiply) probabilities. Given exp(ipx) and exp(-ipx), if one multiplies one removes p, i.e. the interactions and only sees the state left. W*(x)W(x) yields a set of peaks which represent a pattern of probabilistic hits in space which define a state which one would measure in space. The interference pattern, however, must be one such that if one integrates over x, one only obtains a classical sum of probabilities a*(p)a(p)’s as mentioned above. This leads to the notion of orthogonal exp(ipx)’s (which follows mathematically anyway). If one considers different bound En states, then these two are orthogonal because W*n1(x)Wn2(x) mean n1 and n2 are associated with different energies and integrating over x cannot show a result which looks like a state result, where W*n(x)Wn(x) shows a state result. In order to achieve this orthogonality (linked directly to the notion of a state) one must have that Wn(2) usually has 0 points and is positive and negative with the possible exception of a ground state. In other words, if Wn1*(x)Wn2(x) integrated over x is not 0, one violates conservation of energy. As a result, we argue an average probability for a bound state must statistically include +p and -p contributions and must create a function which has positive and negative peaks (except possibly for the ground state), i.e. W(x) must have 0 points. This W(x) is linked to a measurement state W*(x)W(x), but this is strictly considering exp(ipx)s. We argue that there are two pieces of information for a free particle, x=vt and exp(ipx). There must also be an average state linked to x=vt and this given by KEave(x) = .5m vrms(x)vrms(x) + V(x) = E which shows that the particle may exist and have average kinetic energy even at W(x)=0 points. When measuring a system, one interacts with the exp(ipx)s and so the W*(x)W(x) state is the one which is traditionally presented, but whether one measures the center-of-mass motion or not, one also has the notion of the x=vt, i.e. vrms(x) state (average) as well, we argue.