[General] de Broglie thesis
Chip Akins
chipakins at gmail.com
Sun Mar 15 04:39:06 PDT 2015
Hi John W
Thank you. It is interesting that De Broglie points out that our theory of
electromagnetism is incomplete as well.
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 2:00 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; ninasobieraj
Subject: [General] de Broglie thesis
Dear Richard, John and everyone,
Martin is deep in the land of nod. His poor stretched brain trying to
recover from the rigourous tests to which it was subjected yesterday. To
keep myself amused while the poor man recovers I am cleaning the kitchen and
re-reading de Broglies thesis.
I though you might like me to share this with you (not the kitchen bit I
suppose).
You can find an English translation here:
http://nonloco-physics.0catch.com/ldb_the.pdf
This was not available until relatively recently in English, but if you can
find a copy in French and have enough fluency to read it, I would recommend
that you do so. This translation is ok on the maths, but does not do the
beauty and poetry of de Broglies French any justice at all. His French is
scrumptious, self-deprecating and yet magnificent. There is a huge amount of
the subtlety "lost in translation". I had a look for a french copy but did
not find one. If any of you do please copy me a link!
In this you will see, to your lasting enlightenment and utter joy, the story
of where quantum mechanics was forged from a proper consideration of the
theory of relativity.
For the initial, central statement of teh problem to be considered look at
Eqs 1.1.6 and 1.1.7 For an analogy of how to visualise the phase-wave
harmony see the top of page 10. Do not take this analogy too literally,
however, as the analogic system absolutely does not transform
relativistcally properly. It is a good place to get started with envisagind
the two waves, one "slower" than lightspeed "one "faster" than lightspeed
but both doing this precisely because, in one frame and one frame alone
(their proper frame), they are both precisely lightspeed.
This stuff is absolutely gorgeous. It was crafted 97 years ago. If I had my
way it would be taught in every undergraduate degree in first year, after
relativity but before quantum mechanics. Indeed- i would teach it at school
instead of the low level and boring stuff they do at the moment. My six year
old asked (he asks I lot) I answered. Now if I try to talk about it he says
"I know dad I know". It should be mothers milk for physicists -Instead it is
lost as it is taught virtually no-where. Even the French CERN guys had not
heard of it. Oh dear!
If he can get it so can all of you.
Just look at the way de Broglie treats experiment as well. As something to
be explained and understood. Currently, QCD asks experiment to parameterise
the values of the starting point of its (many) parameters. To "verify" not
to test. QCD, and the quark-parton model on which it is based (See O'Fallon
and Krish in earlier email). Sails on unperturbed. This is because the
theory IS Non perturbative (i.e.cannot calculate anything useful). The (most
excellent and best and brightest of Europe) are reduced to slaves of the
theory, working, not on physics, but on some small element of a simulation
of QCD, or on developing the machine, or dealing with the data aquisition -
each perorming a tiny fraction of the total task and all thinking - this is
not what I came into physics for. I know - I was there. I got out.
Read further ... after some maths he gets to pretty much the only thing
that survives of this magnificent work in the minds of most practicing
physicists. Eq 2.6.13 - the de Broglie relation. The point where quantum
mechanics was created.
Read and enjoy!
John.
_____
From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of Mark, Martin van der [martin.van.der.mark at philips.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 9:30 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field
Hi all,
in addition to what I said before about the weak and strong force and
topology, I should put it into a little more context.
In QED, the electromagnetic force is carried by photons which are exchanged.
In Maxwell theory there are the EM-fields.
Likewise, the weak force is about W and Z boson exchange on the one hand and
linked field lines (note that that implies a non-trivial topology) on the
other hand.
Then for the strong force it is all about gluons on the one hand and knotted
energy flow on the other.
This is just to make clear that I understand there is quite some further
development required to get to a full and harmonious understanding of all of
these aspects.
Cheers, Martin
Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare
Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
Prof. Holstlaan 4
5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 40 2747548
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflighta
ndparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: zaterdag 14 maart 2015 19:59
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field
Hi Martin
Wonderful!!! Thank you for the paper “A Fields only version of the Lorentz
Force Law:
Particles replaced by their fields”. This resolved a few issues for me.
I would like to submit a thought to the group. When the “twist” as John W
calls it, is correctly integrated into the field equations, we suddenly and
surprisingly have exactly the confinement force required for a suitable
photon to become bound and confined as an electron. Don’t yet know if this
is just a mathematical fluke, but I strongly suspect it is real.
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 1:28 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field
Dear Chip, Andrew, Vivian,
etc
I am at John’s, but currently he is fast asleep. I think I wore him out with
a very long session last night and this morning again.
I see some good things happening.
First to Andrew: The photon is a spin 1 boson, but degenerate as they say
since it cannot have spin {-1,0,+1}, but only spin {-1,+1}. The reason is
that it is rest massless. It’s statistics are special too, and depend on the
kind of light source you are looking at, for example: blackbody radiation,
laser beam or entangled pair. A coherent state, as output by a laser far
above threshold has Poissonian statistics yielding random photon spacing;
while a thermal light field has super-Poissonian statistics and yields
bunched photon spacing. In the thermal (bunched) case, the number of
fluctuations is larger than a coherent state; for an antibunched source they
are smaller [Wikipedia: Photon antibunching]. In general in QM the symmetry
of a state is the product of all relevant ingredients, and this even may
make photons look like fermions if the total state is anti-symmetric. In any
case the photon is special and it justifies to have a conference on “the
nature of the photon”.
Then the neutrino. I also think that it is quite strange and special. It may
be just a topological fault in space, perhaps with a tiny bit of
electromagnetic energy in it
But it should perhaps (likely I would think)
in its topology be similar to the electron.
So now Chip’s very good questions to the group:
How many of you feel that Maxwell’s equations (the full set of 20 if you
like) are incomplete in their representation of microscopic field behaviors
at the particle level?
The Maxwell equations are correct, I think, at all levels, but not complete
at the quantum level
In any case one seems to need to add the Lorentz Force equations to
supplement them (It is the common belief that these cannot be derived from
the Maxwell equations, however this is not quite true, see attached paper.
The invariance principles and conservation of energy that lie at the basis
of Maxwell’s equations do generate the force law by Hamilton’s variational
principle using just and only just the em-fields)
And, if you feel they are incomplete, what exactly do you think is missing?
1) Planck’s constant is not part of it.
2) Only recently people have started to take topological solutions of
the Maxwell fields seriously (Irvine, Kedia, Bouwmeester, etc). Bateman had
identified the framework for it in 1914, but it was not picked up until very
recently by Kedia. Rañada has already given solutions in the 1980ies, and
calculated an action constant!!!!!!
3) Nobody can get stable solutions of CHARGED particles as topological
knots with Plank’s constant in it (yet) (this is the subject of one of my
abstracts
.)
For each of you with an electron model, to what do you attribute the force
allowing confinement of the photon, into the double looped electron
configuration?
The force is the result of two things at least: Topology and no channel for
dissipation. The topology for the electron must be such that the field lines
are all linked and cannot unlink (by their nature they cannot cross). This
is to my view a feature of what we would normally call the weak force. To
continue on that, knotting flows of energy (instead of linking lines of
fields) must then results in the strong force. Quarks do not exist, although
the symmetries attributed to them are absolutely correct, because there is
not enough energy for them to be. (this is the subject of another of my
abstracts
)
And finally, we have an unprecedented availability to review experimental
data and to correlate our theories with that data to check their validity.
Are there any specific experiments that we need to carry out to enhance our
knowledge and prove any of our concepts?
A very valid and important question indeed, and I have to think about it. I
do have some ideas, but not solid enough.
Very best, Martin
Oh, that is John just waking up
.
Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare
Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
Prof. Holstlaan 4
5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 40 2747548
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflighta
ndparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: zaterdag 14 maart 2015 15:21
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field
Hi All
Vivian makes some very good points. But, given the members of this group, I
don’t think the frustration of dealing with the established will deter us
from this quest. It is however a deep frustration.
This and worse, has been felt by many scientists in our past as well. But it
does not stop us. We are a scrappy lot.
Good that we understand it and can attempt to develop a strategy to overcome
it.
One such strategy may be simple logic.
Let me go a bit further in that vein.
Any comprehensive EM field theory should explain and define what we can
observe of the behavior of EM fields. Planck’s constant and spin is a clear
observable in the microscopic realm of EM fields. Can anyone show how
Planck’s constant is fully defined in, or directly derived from, Maxwell’s
equations? Even in the full set of 20 equations from the 1863 to 1865
publications? If not, then it follows clearly that the field equations are
incomplete. Our task then is to suggest a complete version of the field
equations. One that agrees with experiment. This is a critical step in
developing a new and more solid foundation from which to build.
We have all seen the elegance of the double loop photon model of the
electron, but as we build those models, we face issues with the foundations
we are working from. There seem to be “small” details missing from our
physical foundations.
Even crippled, by starting from an incomplete foundation, we have been able
to find many answers. We have, however, seen what can happen when an
elaborate theory is built on incomplete foundations. We don’t want to
create another theory full of inconsistencies, and unnatural infinities,
which requires special cases and massaging, to force fit the answers to
nature.
While working on the puzzle, we built models of the electron from the
photon. Once we have built those models, it becomes apparent that there are
forces in the photon and electron which are not accounted for in our field
theories. Luckily we are able to start with the simple stuff, photon and
electron, and still see there is something missing. John W and Martin, and
in ways, others of us, have addressed some of the missing stuff.
What we are proposing is a fairly substantial overhaul of an established,
and well backed theory, the Standard Model. In order to be successful we
must provide answers. We must provide better answers and solutions than
offered by the theory we are attempting to replace.
Some of the things we will find that we need to propose in the theoretical
foundations will have profound implications in the nature and structure of
the Standard Model. For some, perhaps many, the Standard Model meets all
the requirements to be classified as a religion. It is the belief system
upon which their entire life and livelihood is based. The more prestigious
their position in the scientific community supporting the Standard Model,
the more they would “feel” any shaking of that foundation.
So now my questions to the group.
How many of you feel that Maxwell’s equations (the full set of 20 if you
like) are incomplete in their representation of microscopic field behaviors
at the particle level?
And, if you feel they are incomplete, what exactly do you think is missing?
For each of you with an electron model, to what do you attribute the force
allowing confinement of the photon, into the double looped electron
configuration?
And finally, we have an unprecedented availability to review experimental
data and to correlate our theories with that data to check their validity.
Are there any specific experiments that we need to carry out to enhance our
knowledge and prove any of our concepts?
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 6:48 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg
Cc: P.G. Vaidya
Subject: Re: [General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field
Dear Andrew,
Martin is here, but currently fast asleep. I think I wore him out with a
very long session last night. I will have a go at beginning to take the
discussion forwards, and suggesting some places to look.
I'm please you think that this process (of discussing) "the photonic
electron is the basis for "self-consistently redefining the foundations of
modern physics." That is exactly what Martin and I have been trying to do
for the last quarter century or so and it is so relaxing to have a few more
of you to share the fun with.
We need to remember, in doing this, that there is much which is good in
physics as it stands- and anything we come up with must be consistent with
those existing theories which have served us well (which is what Martin was
trying to say in his very terse message yesterday) - even if they have nor
proven entirely consistent with experiment in every area.
If there is disagreement with experiment, any new paradigm should fix those
disagreements AND show how this moves seamless to an agreement where those
theories are valid.
Now this is really hard, of course. Free imagination- but strongly
constrained by what we know to be right (the body of well-founded and
well-understood experiment) and guided by what we alread know explains large
areas of that experiment well- such things as relativity, Maxwell, QM, QED,
NIW and so on ...
The currencies in the standard view (by which I mean within the standard
model) is that the concepts of "fermion" and "boson" are so important, for
example - that the fact that the proton is a fermion means that the quarks
in quantum chromo-dynamics (QCD), of which it supposed to be composed, must
also be fermions.
This view is, however, strongly challenged by experimental high energy
physics. See O Fallon et. al. Phys. Rev. (1977). Yes 1977!. Also the, very
accessible, explanation of this by the group spokesman, Krish, in Scientific
american May 1979. This is an excellent article "on the spin of the proton".
It shows, indeed, thath the quarks as they are in the standard model - as
fermions, simply cannot exist. They are simply inconsistent with experiment.
This situation, as of 2015, still stands. Please, everyone, have a look at
these - especially the scientific american one as this gets properly to the
underlying point. It has been a very long time since the fermionic and
bosonic statistics ceased being a verb or an adverb and became seen as being
an absolute noun. The Experimental evidence, however, is simply against
"quarks" being fermions. Eat this!
Also, I have heard stated that the statistics of light in a laser is not
Bose but Boltzmann. This is your field some of you guys .. true or false?
In HEP the photon is seen as being a boson, but a peculiar one it that it
has only two states as a free particle (seen as left and right (but opposite
- right and left in optics convention). What is it? Boson or 2/3 boson?
Discuss!
Cheers, John
_____
From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of Andrew Meulenberg [mules333 at gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 9:21 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg
Cc: P.G. Vaidya
Subject: Re: [General] Velocity of the Coulomb Field
Dear Martin;
I feel that 'conservation of spin' may not apply in a relativistic
bound-electron case (angular momentum yes, spin no). So, if that is the only
experimental basis, then I am not convinced. I believe that the neutron is
a proton plus a deep-Dirac-level (DDL) electron that is stabilized by the
presence of another proton and the exchange forces between them from the
bound electron. [The DDLs are predicted by the anomalous solution of the
Dirac equations and, if they exist, then the spin-spin coupling of the
proton and DDL electron is so strong that the hyperfine splitting of these
levels may be in the MeV range.]
If this is the case, then the deepest (but highest-energy) DDL, if
populated, contains an electron that is orbiting within the proton and is
strongly interacting with the proton's quarks and their EM fields. This of
course leads to speculation of what quarks really are. As I said, this
concept of the photonic electron is the basis for "self-consistently
redefining the foundations of modern physics."
Andrew
________________________________
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Mark, Martin van der
<martin.van.der.mark at philips.com <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> >
wrote:
Dear Andrew,
I have to point out that experimentally it is really so that the neutrino is
a fermion and the photon is a boson, it follows from the conservation if
spin.
I am telling you, but you have to put your own energy and work into it to
find out that it is realy true, that is the only way you will get the
insight.
Most of the physics people try to make you believe is actually true!
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 13 mrt. 2015 om 17:56 heeft Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com
<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> > het volgende geschreven:
John D said: "We should “torque” about neutrinos more, because they are more
like photons than they’re like electrons."
I thought that I was the only one crazy enough to talk about neutrinos as
photons. Or photons as a subset of neutrinos. However, I suspect that this
group might have others with the same perception.
I consider neutrinos to be photons from a relativistic bound electron. They
should have, in addition to the oscillating E & B fields, an oscillating
Mass field. I think that the argument that they must be fermions (to
'conserve' the fermion number of the neutron, electron, and proton) is
bogus. They may be fermions and/or bosons, but the argument is bogus. I
think that photons can be either, or both, fermions and bosons. Has anyone
directly measured the spin of a neutrino (other than by comparison of the
number of fermions present)?
If it is a photon from a relativistic electron, then the neutron is an
electron plus a proton and that is 'forbidden' speech. However, when the
concept of the neutron was 'defined' (set in concrete), there were no
charge-density profiles available to point to and defend the bound-electron
model. There are now.
This group could be self-consistently redefining the foundations of modern
physics.
Andrew
_____
The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally
protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the
addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies
of the original message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150315/9b48afed/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list