[General] de Broglie Waves from Chapter 1

Thu May 28 23:04:06 PDT 2015

John W and John M, 
   Thank you both for your further explanations. It is remarkable (and not accidental I’m sure) that the relativistic de Broglie wavelength can be completely generated by the interference of two oppositely moving Compton wavelength waves that have been relativistically Doppler shifted in opposite directions by a velocity equal to the velocity of a moving electron. I think that both of your electron models essentially rely on this method of generating the de Broglie wavelength, and I used this approach also in an earlier electron model and expected to use it again. So it was quite a surprise to me when the electron’s relativistic de Broglie wavelength and the related electron quantum phase velocity (c^2)/v fell out simply from the relativistic electron as modeled by a helically moving circulating charged photon, with frequency f=(gamma mc^2)/h and wavelength L= h/(gamma mc) , the de Broglie wavelength being simply derived from the longitudinal wave vector component k of the helically moving photon’s wave vector K along the helical trajectory, whose forward angle theta is given by cos (theta) = v/c. John M’s hypothesis seems to depend critically on a single-loop structure of the electron, whereas John W mentions several strong reasons that support a double-loop approach. I think that both models show a size that decreases with gamma as is experimentally required from high-energy electron scattering experiments. It will be very interesting to see how these and other electron models play out with further developments. I think that 3D graphic animations of various electron models generating the de Broglie wavelength will be very informative. 
      Richard  

> On May 28, 2015, at 9:16 PM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Before anyone runs off with any wrong impressions here, the de Broglie derivation is not, in any way, dependent on there being an enormous underlying mass and energy density in space and time, but merely on a proper consideration of the properties of special relativity. This is, I think, what Richard may have meant when he asked the question.
> 
> The de original Broglie derivation (in the thesis link I circulated earlier) used only the properties of the relativistic transformation of frequency (in energy) and of time.  This was derived in the twenties. The derivations mentioned in the chapter 1 of John M's book are nice, have some beautiful pictures and are correct as far as I can see, but they are nothing new (as he says himself) in general and nothing to do, in particular, with a speculative hyper-energy background to space and time.
> 
> Further, it is not so that the double-loop model precludes a proper derivation of this relation. It is (trivially) so that if you start by (wrongly) putting a factor of two in in the initial calculation you will get a factor of two out. Surprise! The double looping comes from the topology of the folding of the inherent twist of light with its turn in confinement. There are then two frequencies simultaneously, an octave apart. The base frequency is still that of light-in-a-box. 
> 
> All relativistic models - including notably the Dirac model developed in the thirties - properly account for the de Broglie wavelength as being due to these (merely relativistic) transformations. This is also discussed, for example, in Martin and my 1997 paper.  Martin had derived this, again independently, from the properties of the (double looped) photon back in 1991. 
> 
> Further, the double-looping is required to PROPERLY account for the difference between fermions and bosons. Fermions, as is well known, must have an internal 720 degree rotation before returning to their starting configuration.  This is what a spinor is. Look it up. Wikipedia is a good place to start. Simple 360 degree models have a long history (going back to Lord Kelvin at Glasgow) but have not yet proven consistent with experiment. 
> 
> Further, there has been a lot of focus on calculating a VALUE for hbar. This is a red herring. It is not normal behaviour that something half as big behaves completely differently. Small humans do not have an exclusion principle that humans twice as large lack. Merely finding a value is not the point. One has to understand the MECHANISM - the underlying reason for the very different behaviour of fermions and bosons. 
> 
> Regards, John W.
> From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of David Mathes [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>]
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:19 PM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> Subject: Re: [General] de Broglie Waves from Chapter 1
> 
> John
> 
> I am...speechless.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> From: John Macken <john at macken.com <mailto:john at macken.com>>
> To: Nature of Light and Particles <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>> 
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 10:14 AM
> Subject: [General] de Broglie Waves from Chapter 1
> 
>  
> Richard asked a question that jarred me a little bit.  The question was, “Is there a quantitative fit to the de Broglie wavelength equation, and if so, why?”  The reason that I said that it jarred me is that I had been proceeding under the assumption that this group understood all the information about how de Broglie waves are connected to light waves.  While I independently developed all the information in chapter 1 of my book, I have subsequently found other references which cover the connection between counter-propagating light waves and de Broglie waves.  In fact, I discovered that de Broglie himself made this point.  The illustrations and the appendix analysis  contained in chapter 1 of my book go beyond what others have done. I suggest that you read this information before you will be able to understand my other simulations.
>  
> The importance of the concepts in chapter 1 of my book cannot be overstated for any physicist that is attempting to understand the structure of an electron.  Figure 1-1 on page 1-5 of the attached “Chapter 1.pdf” illustrates several important points.
> 1)     Counter propagating light waves in a moving frame of reference perfectly simulate both de Broglie waves and special relativity effects.  In figure 1 the high frequency waves are the light waves while the envelope modulation waves are the equivalent of de Broglie waves.  These de Broglie waves have the correct wavelength, the correct phase velocity and the correct group velocity.  The wave pattern also exhibits the correct relativistic length contraction.  These points are made in the text of the chapter and rigorously proven in the attached appendix.  (The mathematical analysis in the appendix was done by Chris Ray of St. Mary’s College.)
> 2)     As illustrated in figure 1-1, one complete de Broglie wavelength includes two of the lobe/null combinations.  A null occurs when the counter propagating waves are 180 degrees out of phase.  The oscillations of the light wave lobes also undergo a 180 degree phase shift between adjacent lobes.  This phase shift is hard to see in figure 1-1, but it is easier to see in figure 1-4.  If you follow one color through the dark zone, it becomes the opposite color on the other side of the dark zone.  This indicates the 180 degree phase shift.  The point is that it takes two of these lobes to complete one de Broglie wavelength. This point is included in figure 1-1. 
> 3)     The counter propagating wave analysis also generates the correct relativistic time dilation if you analyze the frequency of oscillation of the combined light waves. (appendix)
> 4)     The counter propagating wave analysis also generates the correct kinetic energy and the correct relativistic corrections to kinetic energy. (appendix)
> 5)     One point that I have not made before in the discussion of single loop versus double loop models is that the correct de Broglie waves are only generated if the electron disturbs the surrounding volume at the electron’s Compton angular frequency ωc = mc2/ħ = c/λc  which implies a reduced wavelength of:  λc = ħ/mc = c/ωc  In other words, a model of an electron that assumes twice the Compton frequency will not generate the correct de Broglie waves if the counter propagating mechanism is assumed.
> 6)     My particle model had as a requirement that it must be capable of generating the correct de Broglie waves, the correct kinetic energy and the correct relativistic effects.  All of this is accomplished by the model chosen since it includes counter propagating waves at the Compton frequency/wavelength in the “external volume” of the electron.
>  
> While others in the group are speculating about knots, swirls and spikes, I am running simulations which are generating real testable results.  I am generating gravity and electric fields.  I am finding previously unknown connections between the gravitational force and the electrostatic force.  I am giving a physical description of the distortion of spacetime caused by a charged particle.  I welcome a debate about whether an electron is a confined photon or oscillations of the vacuum.    
>  
> John M.  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150528/2c8e0a0e/attachment.htm>