[General] research papers
Adam K
afokay at gmail.com
Thu Nov 5 21:16:25 PST 2015
Great references, David. I'd seen some of them but not all. Thanks.
Adam
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:11 AM, <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Adam
>
> A few more references to supplement the MIT article.
>
> Couder and Fort team in France sparked a revolution
> http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+yves+couder/0/1/0/all/0/1
>
> Groessing, Emergence of Quantum Mechanics from a Sub-Quantum Statistical
> Mechanics
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.3719.pdf
>
> Comment from Denmark team
> arXiv:1405.0466 <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.0466.pdf>
>
> Brady and Anderson, Cambridge
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.4356.pdf
>
> Valenti, Beyond the Quantum
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.2758v1.pdf
>
> Hofer, Quantum mechanics: A new chapter?
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.1029v1.pdf
>
> An explanation of interference effects in the double slit experiment:
> Classical trajectories plus ballistic diffusion caused by zero-point
> fluctuations
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.5994.pdf
>
> Couder's website
> Laboratoire Matière et Systèmes Complexes - COUDER Yves
> <http://www.msc.univ-paris-diderot.fr/spip.php?rubrique140&lang=en>
>
> Quantum Weirdness Replaced by Classical Fluid Dynamics - The Resonance
> Project Foundation
> <http://resonance.is/news/quantum-weirdness-replaced-by-classical-fluid-dynamics/>
>
> David
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Adam K <afokay at gmail.com>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 5, 2015 8:14 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers
>
> 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
> <a href="
> 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 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/eaf81aec/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list