[General] research papers

[Dr. Albrecht Giese]

Hi Al,

I share your concern about continuous emission. But I think that this 
concern does not apply to a simple model of charged particles not being 
photons. If e.g. two charges or two charged objects orbit each other in 
free space where there is no else interaction, this configuration does 
not consume any energy, so it should orbit forever. If these two charges 
would be at rest, there would be a static field around this 
configuration. If the charges circle around each other, then this field 
is a changing field. The field is generally able to interact with other 
charges (however it will not interact as long as this configuration is 
alone in space). As this field propagates into all directions (normally 
with c) it will cause an alternating field which looks like a wave. Of 
course this field can interact with other charges which react back to 
the particle configuration. In this way a guiding effect is possible. 
And when this happens, there can be of course an exchange of energy.

Do you have any problems with this view?

Regards, Albrecht


Am 04.11.2015 um 17:35 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
> Hi Albrecht:
> You are qutie correct, when focusing on the historically pure story. 
>  What deBroglie himself did was  too "huristic" to make real good 
> sense---I seem to recall reading somewhere that he himself said as 
> much. The deBroglie wave I tend to ralk about is the version I used to 
> rationalize QM.  It's different from the origional deBroglie wave, but 
> I can't get myself to call it the Kracklauer wave (although I am 
> unaware of any competing priority claims).  Further, the modifications 
> actually pertain virtually exclusively to the palaver and not the math 
> involved.  In the mean time, others, including yourself, have come up 
> with similar explantions (not really new models) for the original form.
> In any case, I find serious fault only with those models that require 
> continious emission as they don't explain where the energy for such a 
> process comes from. Upon reflection, it seems im fact that this 
> objection pertains to all photon and wave models of light in general.
> regards,  Al
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 04. November 2015 um 16:52 Uhr
> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <phys at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
> *Cc:* "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>, "Nature of Light 
> and Particles - General Discussion" 
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "Joakim Pettersson" 
> <joakimbits at gmail.com>, "Ariane Mandray" <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>
> *Betreff:* Re: Aw: Re: [General] research papers
> Hi Al,
> I think that you meet the point quite well. However, the restriction 
> which we both see on the de Broglie wave does not follow from the 
> deduction done by de Broglie. For him this "ficticious wave" is not 
> related to an interaction but accompanies the particle all the time. 
> And otherwise it would not have been logical for Schrödinger to 
> incorporate de Broglie's Ansatz into his wave function.
> Tschüß
> Albrecht
>
>
> Von meinem iPad gesendet
>
> Am 04.11.2015 um 07:33 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
>     Hi Albrecht & readers:
>     Seems to me that your resolution (proposed) for the problem you
>     have with deBroglie waves actually points at the reason there is
>     no problem.  The key: deBroglie waves are a characteristic of the
>     interaction of the particle with other particles, not an intrinsic
>     property of only the particle.  In this sense it "worls" in
>     (better put: with respct to) in all frames, as the "other"
>     particles can be in any frame.  There is no reason to demand that
>     it be Lorentz invariant.  Doing so is mechanically applying a
>     notion without regard for its originor or function.
>     The drawback (as I see it) to your "reflection-conception" is that
>     it requires the primary particle to be continiously emmiting waves
>     (to get reflected) without providing (so far at least) an energy
>     source for this continious emission.
>     Tuschss,  Al
>     *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 03. November 2015 um 17:58 Uhr
>     *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <phys at a-giese.de>
>     *An:* "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>     *Cc:* "(af.kracklauer at web.de)" <af.kracklauer at web.de>, "Nature of
>     Light and Particles - General Discussion"
>     <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "Joakim Pettersson"
>     <joakimbits at gmail.com>, "Ariane Mandray" &
>



---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151107/bc691a3d/attachment.htm>