[General] research papers
Adam K
afokay at gmail.com
Thu Nov 5 08:14:48 PST 2015
Richard,
Great email. A few reactions:
The paper by de Broglie you cite is excellent, it is the one I was
referencing in an earlier email when I said de Broglie said that the wave
function is 'arbitrarily normed'. One standout line for me from that paper
is right before the conclusion you quoted -- in speaking of the 'sub
quantum' world, de Broglie says: "Although interesting explanations have
been proposed for this sub-quantum medium’s nature, it seems premature to
discuss the problem in the present paper."
That wasn't too long ago, in the 80s. Probably the main thing that has
changed since then is Coudet's experiments, the consequences of which are
well-spelled-out here :
http://math.mit.edu/~bush/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Bush-PHYSICS-TODAY2015.pdf
the general website is here:
http://math.mit.edu/~bush/?page_id=484
Unfortunately, it is only an analogue. It points the way, but does not
amount to real quantum physics. Nevertheless, everyone interested in the
pilot wave model should be aware of this work. The perspective introduced
by these experiments is EXACTLY what de Broglie imagined in his mind. Also,
analogies can be quite powerful! I reread Schrodinger's Nobel lecture last
night and it struck me that you would be interested -- it spells out the
*analogy* between mechanics and optics that inspired him
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1933/schrodinger-lecture.pdf
Another source for the same concepts is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton%27s_optico-mechanical_analogy
The real work seems to me to lie in specifying de Broglie's 'sub-quantum'
world. How is it that a field (or whatever) could support both particle and
wave manifestations? In this light I would say what counts as a "new
direction" in your above email is precisely your model of helically turning
quantum energy (whatever that is!) but in order to really solve the problem
we need to understand WHY the 'sub-quantum medium' gives rise to the
patterns you are envisioning.
Adam
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello Al and Albrecht and all,
>
> For those interested, I found a link to de Broglie’s article (translated
> into English) “Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution
> theory” at http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf . It
> includes his “harmony of phases” calculations. Here is the article’s
> conclusion:
>
> “Such is, in its main lines, the present state of the Wave mechanics
> interpretation by the double-solution theory, and its thermodynamical
> extension. I think that when this interpretation is further elaborated,
> extended, and eventually modified in some of its aspects, it will lead to a
> better understanding of the true coexistence of waves and particles about
> which actual Quantum mechanics only gives statistical information, often
> correct, but in my opinion incomplete.”
>
> In other words, de Broglie considered his double-solution approach as
> unsuccessful as an interpretation of the quantum mechanics formalism and
> wave-particle dualism. It may be that de Broglie’s belief in a “true
> coexistence” of waves and particles is fundamentally defective, and that
> there may be a more unified explanation of wave-particle dualism than de
> Broglie, Bohr, Bohm and other interpreters of quantum mechanics have so far
> considered. Below are some further thoughts, based on de Broglie’s own
> explanation of how he developed his conception of the association of waves
> and particles, that developed over time into his double-solution approach.
>
> Al and Albrecht, you both have made some good and informative points
> about pilot waves and the need for getting at a fundamental theory for de
> Broglie waves. A key observation is from Al: "Seems to me that QM is not
> a theory from within which a theory of fundamental particles could ever be
> derived.” I would apply that same observation to the Bohm
> quantum-potential hypothesis and to de Broglie’s double-solution
> hypothesis. Since Bohm’s quantum potential approach and de Broglie’s
> double-solution approach (also involving a quantum potential) are both
> derived from the Schrodinger equation, we also cannot expect these
> approaches to provide the basis for deriving a fundamental theory, even
> though they (Bohm more successfully than de Broglie) provide alternative
> interpretations to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM math. SED theory,
> though somewhat successful in describing the de Broglie wave, does not lead
> to all the math of QM, which so far predicts statistically the results of
> all relevant experiments. And de Broglie’s initial pilot-wave approach had
> serious problems that even he admitted.
>
> But a key idea about de Broglie waves which de Broglie, Al, Albrecht
> and I (and others?) could I think all agree on is that quantum waves are
> emitted/emanated from the electron (or circulating charged photon), at
> least mathematically. These waves lead to the de Broglie wavelength, which
> was incorporated successfully into the Schrodinger equation. According to
> the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, quantum wave functions are not
> physically real but only informational in their predictions of future
> electron detection probabilities and scattering/interference phenomena as
> in the double slit experiment. If quantum wave functions and wave function
> “collapse” are only informational ("the particle is found here so it is not
> there", then there is no need to worry about faster-than-light energy
> travel during wave function collapse. If we can get a better understanding
> of the quantum wave emission process leading to de Broglie waves, this
> could lead to a more fundamental interpretation of QM in a way that
> analysis of the Schrodinger equation or Bohm’s quantum potential approach
> may not.
>
> De Broglie derived the correct formula for his wavelength, so he did
> something right. But his pilot-wave and later his double-solution
> interpretations of matter waves were not satisfactory, even to him. The
> Copenhagen statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics (of Bohr,
> Heisenberg and Born) came to dominate other interpretations. What was
> wrong with de Broglie’s pilot-wave interpretation? In his 1937 book “Matter
> and Light, the New Physics” (Dover Publications, p 186) de Broglie wrote:
>
> “Actually it is possible to establish a connection between the motion of
> the corpuscle and the propagation of the wave; for provided that at the
> initial instant the intensity of the wave measures at every point the
> probability that the corpuscle is present there, then it also indicates
> this probability at every later instant. The corpuscle may thus be regarded
> as guided by the wave—a kind of pilot-wave. This view provides an
> interesting picture of the motion of corpuscles in Wave Mechanics without
> there being any need to abandon classical ideas too sweepingly.
> Unfortunately, however, here too very serious objections are met, and it is
> impossible to remain satisfied with the concept of the wave as a kind of
> pilot. At the same time the equations on which this theory rests cannot be
> challenged, so that some of its results can be preserved by giving them a
> less uncompromising form in accordance with ideas independently elaborated
> by Kennard. (Physical Review, XXXI, 1928, p.876) Instead of speaking of the
> motion and the trajectory of corpuscles we speak of the motion and the
> trajectory of ‘elements of probability’, and in this way the difficulties
> mentioned are avoided.”
>
> I think that de Broglie made a conceptual error (see his quote below),
> which developed into his pilot wave hypothesis and later into his
> double-solution hypothesis. In thinking about Einstein's relationship E=hf
> for a photon, de Broglie thought that a particle having energy E is
> associated with a wave of frequency f. He therefore thought that this
> particle (the photon) must be physically accompanied by a wave, i.e. that
> the wave and the particle exist in some sense side by side. He thought that
> this wave-particle relationship could also apply to particles with mass. In
> the case of an electron, he developed the hypothesis that the particle
> first generates the wave from the particle's internal vibratory frequency
> and then this wave influences and guides the particle. On p. 169 of “Matter
> and Light", de Broglie writes:
>
> “In this way, then, I obtained the following general idea, in
> accordance with which I pursued my investigations:—that it is necessary in
> the case of Matter, as well as of radiation generally and of Light in
> particular, to introduce the idea of the corpuscle and of the wave
> simultaneously: or in other words, in the one case as well as the other, we
> must assume the existence of corpuscles accompanied by waves … and it must
> consequently be possible to establish a certain parallelism between the
> motion of a corpuscle and the propagation of its associated wave. The first
> object at which to aim, therefore, was to establish the existence of this
> parallelism.”
>
> So based on Einstein’s E=hf equation for photons, de Broglie initially
> supposed that there are two different entities, the particle and the wave,
> in association. This led to a kind of wave-particle dualism in his pilot
> wave approach, with particle and wave existing somehow physically side by
> side and with the wave guiding the particle. Bohr however insisted on
> wave-particle complementarity rather than wave-particle dualism, and Bohr's
> view became historically the dominant view, where the quantum wave
> functions predict the probability of finding the particle through Psi*Psi.
> But in Bohr’s approach and in quantum mechanics in general, the origin of
> the quantum wave functions themselves is a mystery, or rather quantum wave
> functions are a basic postulate of QM theory, where no deeper understanding
> of them is supposed to be possible.
>
> If physicists are to understand the origin of quantum wave functions
> rather than just calculate and use them, a more fundamental approach to the
> foundations of quantum mechanics is needed, which goes beyond wave-particle
> dualism and complementarity.
> What I am proposing is that instead of two associated entities in QM
> — a mathematical wave function and a physical particle or particles —
> there is for both of these quantum expressions a single quantum
> informational entity, which I call an energy quantum, which generates both
> the particle and wave aspects of the photon or electron (or other quantum
> objects). If the energy quantum is that of a photon, the energy quantum
> expresses the photon’s wave and particle’s measurable properties. Similarly
> for the electron’s energy quantum. The energy quantum, which is what is
> physically detected in an experiment, continues after detection (if it
> still exists) to express informational quantum waves of a particular
> frequency which spread out as the energy quantum helically circulates
> through space with the same frequency as the quantum waves that it emanates
> (proportional to its energy). The energy quantum carries energy and
> momentum (as well as the information about the quantum’s other physical
> characteristics) and moves forward at light-speed c. The quantum waves
> emitted from a circulating charged photon predict (through Psi*Psi) the
> probability of the location of the charged energy quantum further along its
> direction of motion, through the derived de Broglie "matter waves". If
> there is a double slit ahead so that diffraction and interference from
> waves behind the two slits are present, the emitted quantum waves from an
> electron or photon are like Huygens sub-waves (perhaps this is why the
> Huygens wavefront construction works so well) that spread out and travel
> through both slits, always predicting the location of the electron or
> photon by (Psi*Psi) at any location — either at the slits, in the space
> behind the slits, or at the screen behind the slits. No energy is
> transmitted by these quantum waves. The energy remains with the energy
> quantum emitting the waves. But when the energy quantum is detected its
> energy remains proportional to the frequency of the quantum waves.
> Fundamentally I’m proposing that each energy quantum broadcasts these
> quantum information waves according to Huygens "sub-wave" principle. The
> particular properties of the energy quantum (its energy, mass (if any),
> charge and spin etc.) remain with the energy quantum. This hypothesis is
> proposed to operate even on the single-quantum level, i.e. for one-at-a
> time energy quanta going through a double slit or similar apparatus.
>
> The above proposal is obviously just a beginning (though some modeling
> groundwork on photons and electrons has been done), but it is I think a new
> direction that needs pursuing. Comments or questions?
> Richard
>
> On Oct 29, 2015, at 4:01 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de>
> wrote:
>
> Hello Richard, and hello all,
>
> thank you for this overview about the different interpretations of QM and
> particle structure.
>
> It seems that the de Broglie idea of a pilot wave is not very plausible
> for you. Why not?
>
> 1. If the pilot wave is built by the oscillating internal charges of a
> particle, it is plausible that this wave interacts on the one hand with the
> other particles met on its way, on the other hand that this field (which
> may be changed by this environment) interacts with the originating particle
> and do guides the particle. Sounds very simple and logical to me.
>
> 2. You present the different deductions of the de Broglie wavelength. But
> none of these deductions help to solve the logical conflicts which occur
> with this wavelength.
>
> I also want to remind that none of the models presented have an
> explanation for the (inertial) mass of a particle. In contrast to my model
> of two constituents which explains the mass based on two assumptions. 1st:
> the particle has an extension; 2nd: the speed of light is finite. And the
> results of this approach are numerically very precise for leptons and
> theoretically also for quarks.
>
> Best regards
> Albrecht
>
>
> Am 28.10.2015 um 21:47 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>
> Hello Al and Albrecht and all,
>
> Al’s paper No. 11 is a nice summary of several wave-related options
> for interpreting quantum mechanics:
>
> 1) the Copenhagen complementarity/duality interpretation having abstract
> quantum wave functions that through Psi*Psi predict statistically the
> location, momentum and other observable attributes of a particle or
> particles, and having the de Broglie relationship for an electron built
> into these quantum wave functions to help predict statistically the
> particle's diffraction/scattering/interference/double-slit properties,
>
> 2a) de Broglie’s original pilot wave approach that has a physical guiding
> pilot wave closely associated with and guiding a particle, and where the
> electron’s de Broglie matter-waves/phase-waves emanate from the kernel
> oscillator of the electron,
>
> 2b) the later de Broglie/Bohm interpretation of QM which has a localized
> particle closely associated with a non-local quantum potential that guides
> the particle’s motion using distant information (such as the location of 2
> slits) found in the surroundings, and which predicts the same statistical
> particle properties as the Copenhagen description and
>
> 3) the Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED) approach where background
> electromagnetic waves interact with a dipole (or multipolar) particle to
> produce a standing wave that, when in relative motion, generates the de
> Broglie wavelength by dipole-multipole/background-wave interactions.
>
> As Al describes, approaches (1) and (2 a & b) are problematical -- in (1)
> because of the well-known measurement problem (how to describe the collapse
> of the quantum wave function for a particle if and when this collapse
> occurs), in (2a) because it is not clear and sometimes contradictory
> quantitatively how the pilot wave can guide the particle, and in (2b)
> because the Bohm quantum potential guiding the particle (since it is
> derived from the Schrodinger equation) has as its main motivation the
> generation of the QM statistical predictions of the Schrodinger equation
> without the measurement problem associated with wave-function collapse in
> (1).
>
> The approach describing the electron as helically circulating spin-1/2
> charged photon generating the de Broglie wavelength is quite distinct from
> these above approaches as to how the de Broglie wavelength and matter waves
> are generated. In the charged photon approach, the charged photon’s speed,
> frequency, energy, wavelength and momentum relations are all associated
> with de Broglie's proposed relationship E=hf = gamma mc^2 for a moving
> electron and with E = hf, p = h/lambda and c = f lambda for a
> photon. Unlike de Broglie’s approach where pilot phase waves having the
> relativistic de Broglie wavelength h/(gamma mv) are generated directly from
> the oscillating electron’s mass kernel, the helically-circulating charged
> photon is proposed to first generate quantum plane waves with wavelength
> h/(gamma mc) as the charged photon helically circulates. These quantum
> plane waves intersect the helical axis (the path of the modeled moving
> electron) to generate the electron’s relativistic de Broglie matter waves,
> which in the non-relativistic Schrodinger equation picture correspond to
> the wave equation of a free electron. In the Bohm approach the particle
> associates with and is informed by the quantum potential to generate the
> electron’s diffraction properties involving the de Broglie wavelength,
> while in the Copenhagen interpretation, the particle description is
> complimentary to the quantum wave-function description, and the source of
> the de Broglie wavelength is unspecified except mathematically in the
> formal QM equations. In the SED approach, it is the interaction with
> background electromagnetic waves with the particle oscillator that
> generates the de Broglie wavelength.
>
> So the charged-photon approach to modeling the electron suggests a
> different interpretation for the generation of the de Broglie wavelength,
> which is fundamental to describing the wave-particle nature of particles
> with rest mass, and forms a basis of quantum mechanics. Describing an
> electron as a circulating charged photon, suggests that the if the electron
> is a new variety of photon with many of a photon’s properties but some
> differences also, the problem of why the electron has wavelike properties
> may be nearing a solution, but the problem of understanding (rather than
> just postulating) why the photon has wave-particle properties still
> remains.
>
> with best regards,
> Richard
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 28, 2015, at 7:48 AM, <af.kracklauer at web.de>af.kracklauer at web.de
> wrote:
>
> Hi Albrecht:
>
> See below:
>
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 28. Oktober 2015 um 14:56 Uhr
> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" < <genmail at a-giese.de>genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de, general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Cc:* "Richard Gauthier" < <richgauthier at gmail.com>richgauthier at gmail.com>,
> "Joakim Pettersson" < <joakimbits at gmail.com>joakimbits at gmail.com>,
> "Ariane Mandray" <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers
> Hi Al,
>
> thank you for the reference to your paper. I think that it is an
> interesting contribution. However I need some more details in order to
> fully and correctly understand it.
>
> 1.) Is it correct that your deduction of the de Broglie wavelength is
> based on the understanding that there exists a background of EM-waves? And
> that it needs this understanding?
>
> Al: Yes, but I do not see that as an ontological fact as much as a
> convenient summary of the totality of interactions with the remaining
> charges in the universe. (Maybe you've picked up by now that at a
> fundamental level I do not accept the concepts of "photon" or "E&M" as
> valid final discriptions or models for the totality of all possible
> gaussian (1/r^2) WITH DELAY between ALL extant charges. Photons and E&M
> waves are approximations, albeit very useful ones.) If one choses to live
> with this assumtion, i.e., the existence of this background, which is, BTW,
> identical with that deduced from QM. as it stands, then the energy density
> at each point in space divergerges, just like "2nd QM "quantum vacuum"! To
> get around this objection I have some ideas, still a bit raw and unwritten
> up.
>
>
>
>
> 2.) The sequence of your equations (1) to (4) is too compact for me to
> make it understandable, missing e.g. a definition of k0. Any chance to
> have it more detailed?
>
> Al: Don't over interpret it, just redo it yourself with whatever notation
> you like. The description is meant to be definitive. The math is
> atmospherics for the paper. But, k_0 = omega_0/c where the omega is for
> the resonant wave in the particles rest frame. It turns out, as argued
> lower in the paper, this does not really matter which omega, or how many
> (e.g., multipole interaction, etc.), even an infinite number (point
> charge), they all get modualted by the deBroglie wave. Again, this is the
> final, average effect, not an ontologically precise deal. QM, after all,
> is about averages, relabeled "expectations." Thinking otherwise leadds to
> endless logic-traps.
>
> Al: Hope this helps, best Al
>
> Thanks and best regards
> Albrecht
>
>
> Am 27.10.2015 um 16:11 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
> Hi All:
>
> In paper No. 11 on <http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com/>
> www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com I published some ideas on the origin and
> nanture of deBroglie waves. Seems to me some of the objections and
> obscurities mentioned below are delt with therein. Take a look, see what
> you think.
>
> ciao, Al
>
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 27. Oktober 2015 um 15:39 Uhr
> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion"
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "Joakim Pettersson"
> <joakimbits at gmail.com> <joakimbits at gmail.com>, "Ariane Mandray"
> <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers
> Hello Richard (and all),
>
> thank you, Richard, for your informations. You find my answers and
> comments in your text.
>
> However I see here two general problems which should be reviewed by all.
>
> 1.) The fact that the de Broglie wave regarding its definition and its use
> is *not *Lorentz-invariant. So it is incompatible with our physical
> understanding since 1905.
>
> 2.) If the photon is seen as the ingredient of the electron, we need a
> much clearer definition and understanding what the photon is and what its
> effects are in detail (like the wave front emitted). Otherwise there are
> too many insufficiently defined situations as visible in the discussion
> further down. - And clearly we do not get any help from quantum mechanics
> for this, after Heisenberg has stated that it is completely useless to look
> into an elementary particle, and the physical community has accepted this
> since that time.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%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/20151105/526a2718/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list