[General] research papers
Dr. Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Sat Nov 7 08:29:13 PST 2015
Hello Richard,
thanks for you thorough reading and your comments. Please find my
comments in the text below.
Am 06.11.2015 um 16:21 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
> Hello Albrecht,
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> Perhaps I need a better word than “energy quantum” (such as just
> the noun Quantum, although “quantum” is occasionally used as noun
> already) for the hypothesized quantum object generating a photon or an
> electron and its wave/particle characteristics. The energy quantum of
> an electron would be different from the energy quantum of a photon.
> Each energy quantum would be characterized by a set of invariant
> properties (including c, h , e and m for an electron, and c and h for
> a photon), and a set of quantum rules for how the energy quantum
> expresses into observable phenomena.) It is true that an photon or an
> electron can have a continuous range of measured energies when they
> are not confined (which also depend on the state of motion of the
> observer of the electron or the photon), as well as a set of discrete
> energy values when they are confined.
Yes, this is essentially also my understanding. But I do not think that
there is so much difference between a photon and an electron. The photon
has one electric charge, the photon most probably two opposite charges.
And has some reason for twice the spin.
> The word “quantized” traditionally refers to the discrete energies
> that bound electrons and photons have, but also (and originally
> through Planck) refers to Planck’s hypothesis that electromagnetic
> radiation is released or absorbed in quantized or discrete amounts by
> “oscillators” in a black body (an idealized object actually made of
> atoms/molecules).
Oscillators are as well bound states! That is the physical reason behind
Planck's hypothesis in my understanding.
> These released quanta of radiation, if continuing to exist as
> energy-packets of light, were called “light corpuscles” by Einstein,
> and later “photons” after Compton's experiments. Bohr proposed that
> motions themselves can be quantized,
Bohr's position that motion in general is quantized sounds very weird to
me, typical for Bohr
> like the angular momentum of electrons in the Bohr atomic model.
this angular momentum is also caused by a bound state. For the rest
("motions") I do not see a reason.
> Other particle characteristics like electric charge are also sometimes
> described as “quantized” because they come in discrete amounts.
In my understanding a charge is the only quantity which is quantized
from nature. More fundamental quantizations do not seem to be necessary.
> But the ability of an electron (with the charged photon model) or a
> photon to carry a continuous range of energies and frequencies given
> by E=hf as measured by an observer/particle-detector is one of an
> energy quantum's set of characteristics.
Why is this a quantum? The formula only describes the relation between
those parameters
> By the way, I really doubt that you can derive the fundamental
> relation E=hf , including Planck’s constant, from your electron model.
> "E=hf and E=mc^2 can be derived from more basic facts on a lower level
> (like my particle model).”
Yes they can: "E=hf and E=mc^2 " follow from my particle model.
In my particle model mass turns out to be m = ħ / (R*c). Now the
geometry (of the particle model) tells us that f = c / 2 π *R . -> m
= ħ *2 π *f/c^2 , or m= hf/c^2 . From E = mc^2 follows: E = hf .
Now E=mc^2 ^. Again the particle model: m = ħ / (R*c). If now the
particle is set to motion, then R-> R' = R/gamma. So m -> m*gamma. Or Δ
m = m*(gamma-1). On the other hand: Δ E = E_kin = v*Δp (for the
relativistic momentum p) .
If we now equate the expressions for Δ E and Δ m , the result is: Δ E =
Δ m * c^2 . And this result (the original version of Einstein) follows
completely from the model. For details omitted here please look to my
web site www.ag-physics.org/rmass .
>
> As far as de Broglie “getting it right” with his wavelength, he
> definitely got it right in the frame that matters, the rest frame of
> the double slit or the scattering crystals. But I would be very
> surprised if the predicted physical laws of electron diffraction
> change with the motion of the observer with respect to the electrons,
> the scattering object or the detection apparatus. Wouldn’t that
> violate a fundamental principle of relativity that physical laws are
> the same in all inertial frames?
Yes, it violates relativity, exactly that is the problem. From the
experiments it is clear that the use of the de Broglie wavelength works
correctly in relation to the frame of the scattering device. But it is
also very obvious that the use of this wavelength causes absurd results
if transformed to a different inertial frame. (I have shown this earlier
quite explicitly.) So this wave cannot be a property of the electron.
The de Broglie wavelength must be a property of the scattering process.
Best regards
Albrecht
>
> with best regards,
> Richard
>
>> On Nov 3, 2015, at 8:58 AM, Albrecht Giese <phys at a-giese.de
>> <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Richard, hello Al, hello all,
>>
>> thank you, Richard, for all these informations which you have collected.
>>
>> You make the following statement to which I fully agree:
>>
>> " 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. "
>>
>> This is in my understanding the key towards a better understanding of
>> physics, particularly particle physics. However, at some points I
>> have a different understanding than you of what the origins of the
>> phenomena are. Examples: You mention the following relations or rules:
>>
>> E=hf, E=mc^2, a "quantum of energy".
>>
>> E=hf and E=mc^2 can be derived from more basic facts on a lower level
>> (like my particle model). Energy is by my understanding anyway a
>> human concept like space and time. Energy was introduced into physics
>> some centuries ago when people found out that, in macroscopic
>> experiments, energy as a product of force and path is obviously
>> constant. This was taken as an elementary fact. These days we can
>> deduce the conservation of energy (where it is applicable/valid).
>>
>> Energy is quantized in cases where a system is in a bound state. This
>> was first detected for the states of the electrons in an atom. They
>> are in a bound state. A free electron, on the other hand, can have a
>> huge range of continuous energies. So it does not seem to me a good
>> idea to use quanta of energy as fundamental building blocks.
>>
>> Then you write:
>>>
>>> " De Broglie derived the correct formula for his wavelength, so he
>>> did something right."
>>>
>> This surprizes me a lot as I thought that I have made it clear enough
>> that the de Broglie wavelength is not correct in the general case. I
>> works correctly in the inertial system of the scattering device (in
>> case of a double slit experiment). I works incorrectly in ALL other
>> inertial systems.
>>
>> To say it mathematically: This idea of de Broglie works successfully
>> only in 1 frame out of (infinite)^3 frames.
>>
>> Meanwhile I think that I have found a solution for this problem which
>> is based on physics rather than fantasies like harmony of phases. I
>> is mathematically a bit too complicated to present it as a comment
>> here. But in short: it uses the fact of the superposition of the
>> accompanying wave of the electron and the reflection of this wave at
>> the scattering device. In the special situation of scattering it
>> conforms to the result of de Broglie, in the general case it is
>> Lorentz-invariant.
>>
>> I plan to compose a little paper about it, which however will need a
>> bit time.
>>
>> Regarding the self-criticism of de Broglie about his concept of a
>> pilot wave: It should be taken into account that de Broglie had
>> during his life to cope with the hostility of his French colleagues
>> as he did not want to follow the Copenhagen way of QM. I have the
>> impression that he tried to milden this by finding at least some
>> overlap between his concept and the concept of the Copenhagen people.
>> But in my feeling there is little or no overlap, and with this
>> attempt de Broglie caused logical conflicts and compromized his own way.
>>
>> Sorry for the long text
>> and best regards
>> Albrecht
>>
>> Von meinem iPad gesendet
>>
>> Am 02.11.2015 um 19:06 schrieb Richard Gauthier
>> <richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>>:
>>
>>> 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
>>>> <mailto: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 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Albrecht:
>>>>>> See below:
>>>>>> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 28. Oktober 2015 um 14:56 Uhr
>>>>>> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>>>> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>,
>>>>>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>>>> *Cc:* "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>, "Joakim
>>>>>> Pettersson" <joakimbits at gmail.com>, "Ariane Mandray"
>>>>>> <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr <mailto: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 k_0 .
>>>>>> 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 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>, "Ariane Mandray"
>>>>>> <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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
---
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/20151107/08fea1c5/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list