[General] research papers
Adam K
afokay at gmail.com
Wed Oct 21 21:02:41 PDT 2015
Richard,
Thanks! That's fantastic. So glad to finally have it.
Adam
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello Adam and others,
> The book “Quantum theory at the crossroads” is also available online at
> arxiv.org at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609184 .
> Richard
>
> On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:20 PM, Adam K <afokay at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Martin,
>
> So the story of Einstein vs Bohr at Solvay is exceedingly interesting, as
> is de Broglie's attempt there to interpret quantum physics in a non-crazy
> way.
>
> This book
> http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Crossroads-Reconsidering-Conference/dp/1107698316
> is pretty interesting on the subject.
>
> It is specifically cast as a revisitation of de Broglie's pilot wave
> hypothesis, and why it gained no traction at the time. Pauli is made into
> something of a villain.
>
> This review http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.5956.pdf is not particularly
> sympathetic to the authors' thesis, but is an interesting quick read and
> contains some great quotes by de Broglie.
>
> I am not sure what you mean about people thinking QM cannot be reconciled
> with special relativity. Are you talking about entanglement and spooky
> action at a distance? (EPR).
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Mark, Martin van der <
> martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Adam,
>>
>> thank you for that, I do agree. Contrary to popular believes, I think
>> Einstein was more right about almost anything than he perhaps believed
>> himself. But this is just my personal opinion.
>>
>> But that does not mean I disagree very much with Richard. In fact
>> Einstein and the rest of physicists were not yet ready for the next thing
>> after relativity: quantum mechanics. Planck was there, but he had his own
>> opinion. Einstein did actually get the photon concept, of course.
>> Rutherford added an important piece of the puzzle.
>>
>>
>>
>> And then came Bohr with his model of the atom. And then the other famous
>> quantum people.
>>
>> There is one that got famous, but not quite as famous as he should have
>> been. At one Solvay conference Bohr’s PR and style of arguing apparently
>> won at the cost of the point of view of Louis de Broglie’s.
>>
>> As a consequence, we still suffer and the masses believe that quantum
>> mechanics cannot be reconciled with special relativity. The opposite is
>> true: Louis de Broglie DERIVED quantum mechanics from special relativity.
>> Even better, EPR experiments are in accordance with special relativity, see
>> Feynman, Wheeler, Tetrode and Carver Mead.
>>
>> All that is left from de Broglie is his wavelength, and his Harmony of
>> Phases, which he derived from special relativity, is hardly known by the
>> physics community.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers, Martin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* donderdag 22 oktober 2015 0:06
>> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> *Cc:* Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>; Joakim
>> Pettersson <joakimbits at gmail.com>; ARNOLD BENN <arniebenn at mac.com>;
>> Anthony Booth <abooth at ieee.org>; Ariane Mandray <
>> ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers
>>
>>
>>
>> "If he had been more clever and intuitive,"
>>
>>
>>
>> My own beliefs impel me point out that this is a hugely presumptuous
>> thing to say about Einstein, even as a joke. Einstein was arguably the
>> paradigm of intuition. All of the below quotes on intuition are by him:
>>
>> “Indeed, it is not intellect, but intuition which advances humanity.
>> Intuition tells man his purpose in this life.”
>>
>> “The mind can proceed only so far upon what it knows and can prove. There
>> comes a point where the mind takes a leap—call it intuition or what you
>> will—and comes out upon a higher plane of knowledge, but can never prove
>> how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap.”
>>
>> *“*I believe in intuition and inspiration. At times I feel certain I am
>> right while not knowing the reason. When the eclipse of 1919 confirmed my
>> intuition, I was not in the least surprised. In fact I would have been
>> astonished had it turned out otherwise. “
>>
>> “The supreme task of the physicist is the discovery of the most general
>> elementary laws from which the world-picture can be deduced logically. But
>> there is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is
>> only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying
>> behind the appearance, and this *Einfühlung *(feeling-one’s-way-in) is
>> developed by experience.”
>>
>> L. de Broglie referred to Einstein's theory of relativity as "un effort
>> intellectuel peut-être sans exemple." His own investigations were a
>> matter of passion for him, "une difficulté qui m'a longtemps intrigué" and
>> he would not have thought Einstein should have been more clever or
>> intuitive. Finally, it was Einstein's intuition that led him to recognize
>> immediately that de Broglie was onto something serious with his thesis,
>> when it was passed to him from de Broglie's examiners, who had no clue what
>> to make of it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> Right you are. As I remember Einstein's 1905 article “Is the inertia
>> of matter a measure of its energy content?" (it’s been a while), Einstein
>> imagined two emitted rays of light of equal frequency moving in opposite
>> directions coming from a stationary mass. When the rest frame of the mass
>> and the two oppositely moving rays of light is shifted to a moving frame
>> and the mass is moving in the same direction as one of the light rays, the
>> light ray moving in the direction of the mass’ velocity gains more energy
>> from the relativistic Doppler shift than the light ray moving in the other
>> direction loses, leaving a net gain in the energy of the two light rays
>> from the moving mass, as measured in this moving frame. Einstein equated
>> this net gain in energy of the two oppositely moving light rays with the
>> energy lost by the mass when it emitted the two light rays, and from this
>> he derived E= mc^2 (modern terms). If he had been more clever and
>> intuitive, he would have also in 1905 derived the de Broglie wavelength for
>> a moving electron, which comes from setting his two energy formulas — E =
>> hf for a photon’s energy and E = gamma mc^2 for an electron's total energy
>> — equal to each other: hf = gamma mc^2 , which together imply (not
>> logically but intuitively) that an electron is a circulating charged photon
>> generating the de Broglie wavelength. But he unfortunately didn’t do this,
>> and missed out on a second Nobel. If he had done this we would
>> unfortunately never have heard of M. Louis de Broglie and "la comedie
>> francaise". Instead it would have been "la comedie suisse". With these two
>> “errors” (photons and matter waves) on his scientific resume, instead of
>> just one, Einstein probably would never have received Planck’s
>> recommendation for a job in Berlin.
>>
>> all the best,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 10:18 AM, Mark, Martin van der <
>> martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Richard, just for the record, E=mc^2 came before de Broglie and he in
>> turn came before schroedinger and quantummechanics,
>>
>> Cheers, Martin
>>
>>
>>
>> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
>>
>>
>> Op 21 okt. 2015 om 18:40 heeft Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>> Hello John and Albrecht and all,
>>
>> Yes, I’m very much aware that the de Broglie wavelength can be
>> generated from the relativistic Doppler interference of two Compton
>> wavelength waves moving in opposite directions. This is the
>> light-in-a-box-standing-wave-transferred-into-another-relativistic-frame
>> explanation and I used it also in a previous circulating-photon electron
>> model to generate the de Broglie wavelength, just as Martin did in 1991 and
>> you and Martin did in your 1997 paper and John M also did. I think
>> Einstein used it in his 1905 paper to derive E=mc^2. My derivation was
>> independent of your paper, which I hadn’t read when I gave my derivation,
>> which was borrowed from the derivation of an electron modeler with a “space
>> resonance” model of the electron. He though my approach to the electron was
>> “clever, but wrong”. I refrained from returning the compliment. All these
>> derivations requires that there are waves moving in opposite directions and
>> interfering to generate the de Broglie wavelength. In my spin-1/2 charged
>> photon model however, the de Broglie wavelength is generated, without wave
>> interference, from a helically circulating charged photon moving in a
>> longitudinally forward direction and emitting plane waves along the
>> direction the charged photon is moving along the helix. This derivation
>> generates along the helical z-axis the de Broglie relativistic matter-wave
>> equation PHI = A e^i(kz-wt) for a moving electron having the relativistic
>> de Broglie wavelength h/(gamma mv).
>>
>> Albrecht, a reply for your "fundamental objection” to my model is in
>> process. Don’t worry, I can answer it.
>>
>> with best wishes,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 7:34 AM, John Williamson <
>> John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> The de Broglie wavelength is best understood, in my view, in one of two
>> ways. Either read de Broglies thesis for his derivation (if you do not read
>> french, Al has translated it and it is available online). Alternatively
>> derive it yourself. All you need to do is consider the interference between
>> a standing wave in one (proper frame) as it transforms to other
>> relativistic frames. That is standing-wave light-in-a-box. This has been
>> done by may folk, many times. Martin did it back in 1991. It is in our 1997
>> paper. One of the nicest illustrations I have seen is that of John M -
>> circulated to all of you earlier in this series.
>>
>> It is real, and quite simple.
>>
>> Regards, John.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* General [
>> general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>> on behalf of Dr. Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 21, 2015 3:14 PM
>> *To:* Richard Gauthier
>> *Cc:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; David Mathes
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers
>>
>> Hello Richard,
>>
>> thanks for your detailed explanation. But I have a fundamental objection.
>>
>> Your figure 2 is unfortunately (but unavoidably) 2-dimensional, and that
>> makes a difference to the reality as I understand it.
>>
>> In your model the charged electron moves on a helix around the axis of
>> the electron (or equivalently the axis of the helix). That means that the
>> electron has a constant distance to this axis. Correct? But in the view of
>> your figure 2 the photon seems to start on the axis and moves away from it
>> forever. In this latter case the wave front would behave as you write it.
>>
>> Now, in the case of a constant distance, the wave front as well
>> intersects the axis, that is true. But this intersection point moves along
>> the axis at the projected speed of the photon to this axis. - You can
>> consider this also in another way. If the electron moves during a time, say
>> T1, in the direction of the axis, then the photon will during this time T1
>> move a longer distance, as the length of the helical path (call it L) is
>> of course longer than the length of the path of the electron during this
>> time (call it Z). Now you will during the time T1 have a number of waves
>> (call this N) on the helical path L. On the other hand, the number of waves
>> on the length Z has also to be N. Because otherwise after an arbitrary time
>> the whole situation would diverge. As now Z is smaller than L, the waves on
>> the axis have to be shorter. So, not the de Broglie wave length. That is my
>> understanding.
>>
>> In my present view, the de Broglie wave length has no immediate
>> correspondence in the physical reality. I guess that the success of de
>> Broglie in using this wave length may be understandable if we understand in
>> more detail, what happens in the process of scattering of an electron at
>> the double (or multiple) slits.
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Albrecht
>>
>> Am 21.10.2015 um 06:28 schrieb
>> Richard Gauthier:
>>
>> Hello Albrecht,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for your effort to understand the physical process described
>> geometrically in my Figure 2. You have indeed misunderstood the Figure as
>> you suspected. The LEFT upper side of the big 90-degree triangle is one
>> wavelength h/(gamma mc) of the charged photon, mathematically unrolled from
>> its two-turned helical shape (because of the double-loop model of the
>> electron) so that its full length h/(gamma mc) along the helical trajectory
>> can be easily visualized. The emitted wave fronts described in my article
>> are perpendicular to this mathematically unrolled upper LEFT side of the
>> triangle (because the plane waves emitted by the charged photon are
>> directed along the direction of the helix when it is coiled (or
>> mathematically uncoiled), and the plane wave fronts are perpendicular to
>> this direction). The upper RIGHT side of the big 90-degree triangle
>> corresponds to one of the plane wave fronts (of constant phase along the
>> wave front) emitted at one wavelength lambda = h/(gamma mc) of the
>> helically circulating charged photon. The length of the horizontal base of
>> the big 90-degree triangle, defined by where this upper RIGHT side of the
>> triangle (the generated plane wave front from the charged photon)
>> intersects the horizontal axis of the helically-moving charged photon, is
>> the de Broglie wavelength h/(gamma mv) of the electron model (labeled in
>> the diagram). By geometry the length (the de Broglie wavelength) of this
>> horizontal base of the big right triangle in the Figure is equal to the top
>> left side of the triangle (the photon wavelength h/(gamma mc) divided (not
>> multiplied) by cos(theta) = v/c because we are calculating the hypotenuse
>> of the big right triangle starting from the upper LEFT side of this big
>> right triangle, which is the adjacent side of the big right triangle making
>> an angle theta with the hypotenuse.
>>
>>
>>
>> What you called the projection of the charged photon’s wavelength
>> h/(gamma mc) onto the horizontal axis is actually just the distance D that
>> the electron has moved with velocity v along the x-axis in one period T of
>> the circulating charged photon. That period T equals 1/f = 1/(gamma mc^2/h)
>> = h/(gamma mc^2). By the geometry in the Figure, that distance D is the
>> adjacent side of the smaller 90-degree triangle in the left side of the
>> Figure, making an angle theta with cT, the hypotenuse of that smaller
>> triangle, and so D = cT cos (theta) = cT x v/c = vT , the distance the
>> electron has moved to the right with velocity v in the time T. In that same
>> time T one de Broglie wavelength has been generated along the horizontal
>> axis of the circulating charged photon.
>>
>>
>>
>> I will answer your question about the double slit in a separate e-mail.
>>
>>
>>
>> all the best,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 20, 2015, at 10:06 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello Richard,
>>
>> thank you for your explanations. I would like to ask further questions
>> and will place them into the text below.
>>
>> Am 19.10.2015 um 20:08 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>
>> Hello Albrecht,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank your for your detailed questions about my electron model, which
>> I will answer as best as I can.
>>
>>
>>
>> My approach of using the formula e^i(k*r-wt) = e^i (k dot r
>> minus omega t) for a plane wave emitted by charged photons is also used
>> for example in the analysis of x-ray diffraction from crystals when you
>> have many incoming parallel photons in free space moving in phase in a
>> plane wave. Please see for example
>> http://www.pa.uky.edu/~kwng/phy525/lec/lecture_2.pdf . When Max Born
>> studied electron scattering using quantum mechanics (where he used PHI*PHI
>> of the quantum wave functions to predict the electron scattering
>> amplitudes), he also described the incoming electrons as a plane wave
>> moving forward with the de Broglie wavelength towards the target. I think
>> this is the general analytical procedure used in scattering experiments.
>> In my charged photon model the helically circulating charged photon,
>> corresponding to a moving electron, is emitting a plane wave of wavelength
>> lambda = h/(gamma mc) and frequency f=(gamma mc^2)/h along the direction
>> of its helical trajectory, which makes a forward angle theta with the
>> helical axis given by cos (theta)=v/c. Planes of constant phase emitted
>> from the charged photon in this way intersect the helical axis of the
>> charged photon. When a charged photon has traveled one relativistic
>> wavelength lambda = h/(gamma mc) along the helical axis, the intersection
>> point of this wave front with the helical axis has traveled (as seen from
>> the geometry of Figure 2 in my charged photon article) a distance
>> lambda/cos(theta) = lambda / (v/c) = h/(gamma mv) i.e the relativistic de
>> Broglie wavelength along the helical axis.
>>
>> Here I have a question with respect to your Figure 2. The circling
>> charged photon is accompanied by a wave which moves at any moment in the
>> direction of the photon on its helical path. This wave has its normal
>> wavelength in the direction along this helical path. But if now this wave
>> is projected onto the axis of the helix, which is the axis of the moving
>> electron, then the projected wave will be shorter than the original one. So
>> the equation will not be lambdadeBroglie = lambdaphoton / cos theta ,
>> but: lambdadeBroglie = lambdaphoton * cos theta . The result will not be
>> the (extended) de Broglie wave but a shortened wave. Or do I completely
>> misunderstand the situation here?
>>
>> Or let's use another view to the process. Lets imagine a scattering
>> process of the electron at a double slit. This was the experiment where the
>> de Broglie wavelength turned out to be helpful.
>> So, when now the electron, and that means the cycling photon, approaches
>> the slits, it will approach at a slant angle theta at the layer which has
>> the slits. Now assume the momentary phase such that the wave front reaches
>> two slits at the same time (which means that the photon at this moment
>> moves downwards or upwards, but else straight with respect to the azimuth).
>> This situation is similar to the front wave of a *single* normal photon
>> which moves upwards or downwards by an angle theta. There is now no phase
>> difference between the right and the left slit. Now the question is whether
>> this coming-down (or -up) will change the temporal sequence of the phases
>> (say: of the maxima of the wave). This distance (by time or by length)
>> determines at which angle the next interference maxima to the right or to
>> the left will occur behind the slits.
>>
>> To my understanding the temporal distance will be the same distance as of
>> wave maxima on the helical path of the photon, where the latter is lambda
>> 1 = c / frequency; frequency = (gamma*mc2) / h. So, the geometric
>> distance of the wave maxima passing the slits is lambda1 = c*h /
>> (gamma*mc2). Also here the result is a shortened wavelength rather than
>> an extended one, so not the de Broglie wavelength.
>>
>> Again my question: What do I misunderstand?
>>
>> For the other topics of your answer I essentially agree, so I shall stop
>> here.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Albrecht
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Now as seen from this geometry, the slower the electron’s velocity
>> v, the longer is the electron’s de Broglie wavelength — also as seen from
>> the relativistic de Broglie wavelength formula Ldb = h/(gamma mv). For a
>> resting electron (v=0) the de Broglie wavelength is undefined in this
>> formula as also in my model for v = 0. Here, for stationary electron, the
>> charged photon’s emitted wave fronts (for waves of wavelength equal to the
>> Compton wavelength h/mc) intersect the axis of the circulating photon
>> along its whole length rather than at a single point along the helical
>> axis. This condition corresponds to the condition where de Broglie said
>> (something like) that the electron oscillates with the frequency given by f
>> = mc^2/h for the stationary electron, and that the phase of the wave of
>> this oscillating electron is the same at all points in space. But when the
>> electron is moving slowly, long de Broglie waves are formed along the axis
>> of the moving electron.
>>
>>
>>
>> In this basic plane wave model there is no limitation on how far to
>> the sides of the charged photon the plane wave fronts extend. In a more
>> detailed model a finite side-spreading of the plane wave would correspond
>> to a pulse of many forward moving electrons that is limited in both
>> longitudinal and lateral extent (here a Fourier description of the wave
>> front for a pulse of electrons of a particular spatial extent would
>> probably come into play), which is beyond the present description.
>>
>>
>>
>> You asked what an observer standing beside the resting electron, but
>> not in the plane of the charged photon's internal circular motion) would
>> observe as the circulating charged photon emits a plane wave long its
>> trajectory. The plane wave’s wavelength emitted by the circling charged
>> photon would be the Compton wavelength h/mc. So when the charged photon is
>> moving more towards (but an an angle to) the stationary observer, he would
>> observe a wave of wavelength h/mc (which you call c/ny where ny is the
>> frequency of charged photon’s orbital motion) coming towards and past him.
>> This is not the de Broglie wavelength (which is undefined here and is only
>> defined on the helical axis of the circulating photon for a moving
>> electron) but is the Compton wavelength h/mc of the circulating photon of a
>> resting electron. As the charged photon moves more away from the observer,
>> he would observe a plane wave of wavelength h/mc moving away from him in
>> the direction of the receding charged photon. But it is more complicated
>> than this, because the observer at the side of the stationary electron
>> (circulating charged photon) will also be receiving all the other plane
>> waves with different phases emitted at other angles from the circulating
>> charged photon during its whole circular trajectory. In fact all of these
>> waves from the charged photon away from the circular axis or helical axis
>> will interfere and may actually cancel out or partially cancel out (I don’t
>> know), leaving a net result only along the axis of the electron, which if
>> the electron is moving, corresponds to the de Broglie wavelength along this
>> axis. This is hard to visualize in 3-D and this is why I think a 3-D
>> computer graphic model of this plane-wave emitting process for a moving or
>> stationary electron would be very helpful and informative.
>>
>>
>>
>> You asked about the electric charge of the charged photon and how it
>> affects this process. Clearly the plane waves emitted by the circulating
>> charged photon have to be different from the plane waves emitted by an
>> uncharged photon, because these plane waves generate the quantum wave
>> functions PHI that predict the probabilities of finding electrons or
>> photons respectively in the future from their PHI*PHI functions. Plus the
>> charged photon has to be emitting an additional electric field (not emitted
>> by a regular uncharged photon), for example caused by virtual uncharged
>> photons as described in QED, that produces the electrostatic field of a
>> stationary electron or the electro-magnetic field around a moving electron.
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope this helps. Thanks again for your excellent questions.
>>
>>
>>
>> with best regards,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2015, at 8:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard:
>>
>> I am still busy to understand the de Broglie wavelength from your model.
>> I think that I understand your general idea, but I would like to also
>> understand the details.
>>
>> If a photon moves straight in the free space, how does the wave look
>> like? You say that the photon emits a plane wave. If the photon is alone
>> and moves straight, then the wave goes with the photon. No problem. And the
>> wave front is in the forward direction. Correct? How far to the sides is
>> the wave extended? That may be important in case of the photon in the
>> electron.
>>
>> With the following I refer to the figures 1 and 2 in your paper referred
>> in your preceding mail.
>>
>> In the electron, the photon moves according to your model on a circuit.
>> It moves on a helix when the electron is in motion. But let take us first
>> the case of the electron at rest, so that the photon moves on this circuit.
>> In any moment the plane wave accompanied with the photon will momentarily
>> move in the tangential direction of the circuit. But the direction will
>> permanently change to follow the path of the photon on the circuit. What is
>> then about the motion of the wave? The front of the wave should follow this
>> circuit. Would an observer next to the electron at rest (but not in the
>> plane of the internal motion) notice the wave? This can only happen, I
>> think, if the wave does not only propagate on a straight path forward but
>> has an extension to the sides. Only if this is the case, there will be a
>> wave along the axis of the electron. Now an observer next to the electron
>> will see a modulated wave coming from the photon, which will be modulated
>> with the frequency of the rotation, because the photon will in one moment
>> be closer to the observer and in the next moment be farer from him. Which
>> wavelength will be noticed by the observer? It should be lambda = c / ny,
>> where c is the speed of the propagation and ny the frequency of the orbital
>> motion. But this lambda is by my understanding not be the de Broglie wave
>> length.
>>
>> For an electron at rest your model expects a wave with a momentarily
>> similar phase for all points in space. How can this orbiting photon cause
>> this? And else, if the electron is not at rest but moves at a very small
>> speed, then the situation will not be very different from that of the
>> electron at rest.
>>
>> Further: What is the influence of the charge in the photon? There should
>> be a modulated electric field around the electron with a frequency ny which
>> follows also from E = h*ny, with E the dynamical energy of the photon. Does
>> this modulated field have any influence to how the electron interacts with
>> others?
>>
>> Some questions, perhaps you can help me for a better understanding.
>>
>> With best regards and thanks in advance
>> Albrecht
>>
>> PS: I shall answer you mail from last night tomorrow.
>>
>> Am 14.10.2015 um 22:32 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>
>> Hello Albrecht,
>>
>>
>>
>> I second David’s question. The last I heard authoritatively, from
>> cosmologist Sean Carroll - "The Particle at the End of the Universe”
>> (2012), is that fermions are not affected by the strong nuclear force. If
>> they were, I think it would be common scientific knowledge by now.
>>
>>
>>
>> You wrote: "I see it as a valuable goal for the further development to
>> find an answer (a *physical *answer!) to the question of the de Broglie
>> wavelength."
>>
>> My spin 1/2 charged photon model DOES give a simple physical
>> explanation for the origin of the de Broglie wavelength. The
>> helically-circulating charged photon is proposed to emit a plane wave
>> directed along its helical path based on its relativistic wavelength lambda
>> = h/(gamma mc) and relativistic frequency f=(gamma mc^2)/h. The wave fronts
>> of this plane wave intersect the axis of the charged photon’s helical
>> trajectory, which is the path of the electron being modeled by the charged
>> photon, creating a de Broglie wave pattern of wavelength h/(gamma mv) which
>> travels along the charged photon’s helical axis at speed c^2/v. For a
>> moving electron, the wave fronts emitted by the charged photon do not
>> intersect the helical axis perpendicularly but at an angle (see Figure 2 of
>> my SPIE paper at
>> https://www.academia.edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength )
>> that is simply related to the speed of the electron being modeled. This
>> physical origin of the electron’s de Broglie wave is similar to when a
>> series of parallel and evenly-spaced ocean waves hits a straight beach at
>> an angle greater than zero degrees to the beach — a wave pattern is
>> produced at the beach that travels in one direction along the beach at a
>> speed faster than the speed of the waves coming in from the ocean. But that
>> beach wave pattern can't transmit “information” along the beach faster than
>> the speed of the ocean waves, just as the de Broglie matter-wave can’t
>> (according to special relativity) transmit information faster than light,
>> as de Broglie recognized. As far as I know this geometric interpretation
>> for the generation of the relativistic electron's de Broglie wavelength,
>> phase velocity, and matter-wave equation is unique.
>>
>>
>>
>> For a resting (v=0) electron, the de Broglie wavelength lambda =
>> h/(gamma mv) is not defined since one can’t divide by zero. It corresponds
>> to the ocean wave fronts in the above example hitting the beach at a zero
>> degree angle, where no velocity of the wave pattern along the beach can be
>> defined.
>>
>>
>>
>> Schrödinger took de Broglie’s matter-wave and used it
>> non-relativistically with a potential V to generate the Schrödinger equation
>> and wave mechanics, which is mathematically identical in its predictions to
>> Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics. Born interpreted Psi*Psi of the
>> Schrödinger equation as the probability density for the result of an
>> experimental measurement and this worked well for statistical predictions.
>> Quantum mechanics was built on this de Broglie wave foundation and Born's
>> probabilistic interpretation (using Hilbert space math.)
>>
>>
>>
>> The charged photon model of the electron might be used to derive the
>> Schrödinger equation, considering the electron to be a circulating
>> charged photon that generates the electron’s matter-wave, which depends on
>> the electron’s variable kinetic energy in a potential field. This needs to
>> be explored further, which I began in
>> https://www.academia.edu/10235164/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_Fits_the_Schrödinger_Equation .
>> Of course, to treat the electron relativistically requires the Dirac
>> equation. But the spin 1/2 charged photon model of the relativistic
>> electron has a number of features of the Dirac electron, by design.
>>
>>
>>
>> As to why the charged photon circulates helically rather than moving in
>> a straight line (in the absence of diffraction, etc) like an uncharged
>> photon, this could be the effect of the charged photon moving in the Higgs
>> field, which turns a speed-of-light particle with electric charge into a
>> less-than-speed-of-light particle with a rest mass, which in this case is
>> the electron’s rest mass 0.511 MeV/c^2 (this value is not predicted by the
>> Higgs field theory however.) So the electron’s inertia may also be caused
>> by the Higgs field. I would not say that an unconfined photon has inertia,
>> although it has energy and momentum but no rest mass, but opinions differ
>> on this point. “Inertia” is a vague term and perhaps should be dropped— it
>> literally means "inactive, unskilled”.
>>
>>
>>
>> You said that a faster-than-light phase wave can only be caused by a
>> superposition of waves. I’m not sure this is correct, since in my charged
>> photon model a single plane wave pattern emitted by the circulating charged
>> photon generates the electron’s faster-than-light phase wave of speed c^2/v
>> . A group velocity of an electron model may be generated by a superposition
>> of waves to produce a wave packet whose group velocity equals the
>> slower-than-light speed of an electron modeled by such an wave-packet
>> approach.
>>
>>
>>
>> with best regards,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> [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 martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
>> <a href="
>> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
>> ">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally
>> protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the
>> addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
>> notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this
>> message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the
>> intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy
>> all copies of the original message.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151021/e7d7dc0f/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list