[General] research papers
Dr. Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Fri Oct 23 06:12:56 PDT 2015
Dear Martin, dear Adam, dear all:
QM, de Broglie and his wave:
It is true that de Broglie started from Special Relativity (using some
results) to develop his first considerations about particles, so about
QM. But that does of course not guarantee that all his conclusions are
correct with respect to relativity. The de Broglie wave length is a very
special case.
I have shown the other day by a little example that the de Broglie wave
length as defined by himself and as used by present physics is /not
Lorentz-invariant/. We can see (confirmed by experiments) that this wave
length works correctly if used and observed in an inertial system, in
which the double slit arrangement is at rest. But if such experiment is
observed by someone who moves with respect to this arrangement, the
results are incorrect. They can be drastically wrong as I have shown
with the numbers in my example.
How is it possible that this concept in some instances seems correct but
in others not? A plausible assumption (mentioned earlier) seems to be
that the scattering process of an electron at such scattering device
develops some local details in which this de Broglie wave length in fact
occurs; but only there. And with this assumption we can explain both
consequences, the good and the bad one.
This now has a severe consequence: As the de Broglie wave length (and
dB's considerations about it) is not Lorentz-invariant, it cannot be
valid for a free particle, as for a free particle there is no natural
reference system. And a further, even more dramatic consequence, is that
the according part of the Schrödinger equation cannot be correct.
Best regards
Albrecht
Am 23.10.2015 um 00:50 schrieb Mark, Martin van der:
>
> Dear Adam, I was still following up on Richards idea of the origin of
> the de Broglie wavelength.
>
> I was trying to make clear to you Richard and the group how the order
> of events was (roughly), and how quantum mechanics was born from
> special relativity and that the two theories are in complete
> accordance despite a general believe that there are unsurmountable
> problems with causality and that Einstein was wrong, etc. Thank you
> for the article by Felix Bloch, which confirms what I said about the
> origin of the wave equation by Schroedinger, based on de Broglie’s ideas.
>
> I must say that you have not yet understood the salient point of the
> EPR experiment, but let me try to fix it. First of all, before I do
> so, you must realize that I am not claiming anything, I am only
> telling you what is the present situation in physics and that EPR
> experiments show that quantum mechanics is essentially correct.
>
> Now let’s go to the point that you are missing in your example of the
> white and black marbles. You have forgotten that each of the two
> envelopes, with a concealed marble in it, must be delivered through
> the slit of a mailbox. The rule is that if the slit is horizontal,
> that it selects for white/black. If it is vertical it selects for
> green/red, when it is slanted at some angle it is selecting for
> yellow/violet, etcetera. While the postman is underway from sender to
> you, you are allowed to alter the angle of your mailbox (perhaps you
> like some particular color pair better than another pair). The sender
> cannot do anything anymore about the marbles he has put in the
> envelope, but in quantum mechanics it appears that the measurement
> reveals colors as corresponding to the angle of the mailboxes slit!
> This makes it mysterious and is seen as a non-local action, kind of
> spooky indeed. It implies that the marbles that went in the envelope
> at the sender had opposite colors of all possible colors
> simultaneously, somehow.
>
> Now I can understand that the rest of what I have written earlier is
> not going to make much sense to you until you get the above.
>
> I hope this is of some help.
>
> Very best,
>
> Martin
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf Of *Adam K
> *Sent:* donderdag 22 oktober 2015 22:19
> *To:* phys at a-giese.de; Nature of Light and Particles - General
> Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* Joakim Pettersson <joakimbits at gmail.com>; Ariane Mandray
> <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>; ARNOLD BENN <arniebenn at mac.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers
>
> Dear Martin,
>
> I am not sure whether or not you were expressing doubt as to the
> provenance of the wave equation, and what Schrodinger owed to de
> Broglie, but in either case you would probably enjoy reading this
> first person account by Felix Bloch
>
> http://www.physics.smu.edu/scalise/P5382fa15/FelixBlochPhysTodayDec1976b.pdf
>
> As for EPR, it would probably make sense to start another thread, I'll
> leave that to you or anyone else who wishes to reply to decide if it's
> worth doing. I am biased by my own thinking against your claim of
> spooky action. To be honest, I could never bring myself to believe
> that the properties of a particle are indeterminate in the way
> standardly thought. The pilot wave model makes much more sense than,
> and the same predictions as, the mysterian Copenhagen, "particles are
> smears and reality does not exist until I look at it" /niaiserie/.
>
> I could be wrong, and would welcome correction from those with more
> physics experience than me, but there seems to be an enormous
> conceptual leap from the notion that A) We cannot know, even in
> principle, whether 1 or 2 obtains, to B) Neither 1 nor 2 actually
> obtains (they are in superposition) until actually measured. It seems
> to me a grotesque error, and this is a long story of course. Many
> people have weighed in. It is a conceptual leap like that from A) The
> Universe exists, to B) The Creator of the Universe does not want me to
> have sex with people who are the same gender as myself. The chasm
> between these propositions can only be spanned by some enormous error.
>
> A positron was trapped for so long by Dehmelt that he gave it a proper
> name: Priscilla.
>
> /Dehmelt says: “[t]here can be little doubt about the identity of
> Priscilla during this period, since in ultrahigh vacuum she never had
> a chance to trade places with a passing antimatter twin. The
> well-defined identity of this elementary particle is something
> fundamentally new, which deserves to be recognized by being given a
> name, as pets are give names of persons” /
>
> //
>
> I can accept that reality is nonlocal (in a certain sense), and I have
> been aware of the intense problem which is supposedly posed for
> relativity by Bell's inequalities and the notion of entanglement.
> Supposedly there is no actual information transmitted faster than
> light, but all the same the state of one entangled particle is altered
> by measuring the other one. Why is it so hard for people to accept
> that there is no alteration going on, and it is just as if I colored a
> marble white and a marble black, and sent them to two different people
> in the mail? The person who opens the envelope and sees a black marble
> knows that the other person has the white one, but there was no spooky
> action at a distance going on. So what if there is no way of knowing,
> /even in principle/, whether a particle is spin up or spin down? Are
> we humans really so arrogant that by instinct we must project
> ontological restrictions out of our epistemological ones?
>
> The Schrodinger equation gives us probabilities. Quantum physics is a
> statistical theory. Thus all of its predictions hold in the long time
> limit (an electron in a box over sufficient cycles of the electron's
> frequency), or the multiple particle limit (diffraction experiments).
> This alone should be enough for thinking individuals to realize that
> quantum physics is not the end of the road.
>
> Adam
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese
> <genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>
> Hello Richard,
>
> thank you and see my comments below.
>
> Am 22.10.2015 um 00:32 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>
> Hello Albert (and all),
>
> I think your fundamental objection that you mentioned earlier
> can be answered below.
>
> The left side of the big triangle in Figure 2 in my article
> is a purely mathematical unfolding of the path of the helical
> trajectory, to hopefully show more clearly the generation of
> de Broglie wavelengths from plane waves emitted by the actual
> charged photon moving along the helical trajectory. Nothing is
> actually moving off into space along this line.
>
> Consider an electron moving with velocity v horizontally
> along the helical axis. Since in Figure 2 in my article, cos
> (theta) = v/c , the corresponding velocity of the charged
> photon along the helical path is v/ cos(theta) = c , the speed
> of the charged photon, which we knew already because the
> helical trajectory was defined so that this is the case. In a
> short time T, the electron has moved a distance Delectron = vT
> horizontally and the photon has moved a distance Dphoton =
> Delectron/cos(theta) =vT/cos(theta) = cT along its helical
> trajectory.
>
> I agree.
>
> A plane wave front emitted from the photon at the distance
> Dphoton = cT along the photon’s helical path will intersect
> the base of the big triangle (the helical axis) at the
> distance along the base given by Dwavefront = Dphoton /
> cos(theta) = cT/ (v/c) = T * (c^2)/v which means the
> intersection point of the plane wave with the helical axis is
> moving with a speed c^2/v which is the de Broglie wave’s phase
> velocity.
>
> Here I disagree. If we assume the wave front as an extended layer
> through the photon and with an orientation perpendicular to the
> actual direction of the photon, then the intersect point of this
> layer with the axis has the same z coordinate as the z-component
> of the photon's position. This is essential. (I have built myself
> a little 3-d model to see this.)
>
> When now, say at time T_0 , a phase maximum of the wave front
> leaves the photon, then the same phase maximum passes the
> intersect point on the axis with the same z coordinate. After a
> while (i.e. after the time T_p =1/frequency) the next phase
> maximum will exit from the photon and simultaneously the next
> phase maximum will cross the axis. The new z-value (of the photon
> and of the intersect point) is now displaced from the old one by
> the amount delta_z = v * T_p . During this time the photon will
> have moved by c * T_p on its helical path.
>
> Now the spacial distance between these two phase maxima, which is
> the wavelength, is: lambda_photon = c * T_p , and lambda_electron
> = v * T_p .
>
> This is my result. Or what (which detail) is wrong?
>
> best wishes
> Albrecht
>
>
>
> The length of the de Broglie wave itself as shown previously
> from Figure 2 is Ldb = Lambda-photon / cos(theta) = h/(gamma
> mc) / (v/c) = h/(gamma mv). So as the electron moves with
> velocity v along the z-axis, de Broglie waves of length
> h/(gamma mv) produced along the z-axis are moving with
> velocity c^2/v along the z-axis. The de Broglie waves created
> by the circulating charged photon will speed away from the
> electron (but more will be produced) to take their place, one
> de Broglie wave during each period of the circulating charged
> photon (corresponding to the moving electron). As mentioned
> previously, the period of the circulating charged photon is
> 1/f = 1/(gamma mc^2/h) = h/(gamma mc^2/). As the electron
> speeds up (v and gamma increase) the de Broglie wavelengths
> h/(gamma mv) are shorter and move more slowly, following the
> speed formula c^2/v .
>
> Unpublished graphic showing the generation of de Broglie waves
> from a moving charged photon along its helical trajectory. The
> corresponding moving electron is the red dot moving to the
> right on the red line. The charged photon is the blue dot
> moving at light speed along the helix.The blue dot has moves a
> distance of one charged photon wavelength h/(gamma mc) along
> the helix from the left corner of the diagram On the left
> diagonal line (representing the mathematically unrolled
> helix), the blue dots correspond to separations of 1 charged
> photon h/(gamma mc) wavelength along the helical axis. In this
> graphic, v/c = 0.5 so cos(theta)= 0.5 and theta= 60 degrees.
> The group velocity is c^2/v = c^2/0.5c = 2 c, the speed of the
> de Broglie waves along the horizontal axis . The distances
> between the intersection points on the horizontal line each
> correspond to 1 de Broglie wavelength, which in this example
> where v=0.5 c is h(gamma mv) = 2 x charged photon wavelength
> h/(gamma mc).
>
> It is true that when the electron is at rest, the wave
> fronts emitted by the circulating charged photon all pass
> through the center of the circular path of the charged photon
> and do not intersect any helical axis, because no helical axis
> is defined for a resting electron, i.e. the pitch of the helix
> of the circulating charged photon is zero. For a very slowly
> moving electron, the pitch of the helix of the circulating
> charged photon is very small but non-zero, but the de Broglie
> wavelength is very large, much larger than the helical pitch.
> Perhaps you are confusing these two lengths — the helical
> pitch of the circulating charged photon and the de Broglie
> wavelength generated by the wave fronts emitted by the
> circulating charged photon. The pitch of the helix starts at
> zero (for v=0 of the electron) and reaches a maximum when the
> speed of the electron is c/sqrt(2) and theta = 45 degrees (see
> my charged photon paper) and then the helical pitch decreases
> towards zero as the speed of the electron further increases
> towards the speed of light. But the de Broglie wavelength Ldb
> starts very large (when the electron is moving very slowly)
> and decreases uniformly towards zero as the speed of the
> electron increases, as given by Ldb = h/gamma mv. It is the de
> Broglie wavelength generated by the charged photon that has
> predictive physical significance in diffraction and
> double-slit experiments while the helical pitch of the charged
> photon’s helical trajectory has no current predictive physical
> significance (though if experimental predictions based on the
> helical pitch could be made, this could be a test of the
> charged photon model).
>
> I don’t have any comments yet on your concerns about the de
> Broglie wavelength that you just expressed to John W (below).
>
> all the best,
>
> Richard
>
> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:42 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese
> <genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>
> Dear John W and all,
>
> about the _de Broglie wave_:
>
> There are a lot of elegant derivations for the de Broglie
> wave length, that is true. Mathematical deductions. What
> is about the physics behind it?
>
> De Broglie derived this wave in his first paper in the
> intention to explain, why the internal frequency in a
> moving electron is dilated, but this frequency on the
> other hand has to be increased for an external observer to
> reflect the increase of energy. To get a result, he
> invented a "fictitious wave" which has the phase speed
> c/v, where v is the speed of the electron. And he takes
> care to synchronize this wave with the internal frequency
> of the electron. That works and can be used to describe
> the scattering of the electron at the double slit. - But
> is this physical understanding? De Broglie himself stated
> that this solution does not fulfil the expectation in a
> "complete theory". Are we any better today?
>
> Let us envision the following situation. An electron moves
> at moderate speed, say 0.1*c (=> gamma=1.02) . An observer
> moves parallel to the electron. What will the observer see
> or measure?
> The internal frequency of the electron will be observed by
> him as frequency = m_0 *c^2 /h , because in the observer's
> system the electron is at rest. The wave length of the
> wave leaving the electron (e.g. in the model of a circling
> photon) is now not exactly lambda_1 = c/frequency , but a
> little bit larger as the rulers of the observer are a
> little bit contracted (by gamma = 1.02), so this is a
> small effect. What is now about the phase speed of the de
> Broglie wave? For an observer at rest it must be quite
> large as it is extended by the factor c/v which is 10.
> For the co-moving observer it is mathematically infinite
> (in fact he will see a constant phase). This is not
> explained by the time dilation (=2%), so not compatible.
> And what about the de Broglie wave length? For the
> co-moving observer, who is at rest in relation to the
> electron, it is lambda_dB = h/(1*m*0), which is again
> infinite or at least extremely large. For the observer at
> rest there is lambda_dB = h/(1.02*m*0.1c) . Also not
> comparable to the co-moving observer.
>
> To summarize: these differences are not explained by the
> normal SR effects. So, how to explain these incompatible
> results?
>
> Now let's assume, that the electron closes in to the
> double slit. Seen from the co-moving observer, the double
> slit arrangement moves towards him and the electron. What
> are now the parameters which will determine the
> scattering? The (infinite) de Broglie wave length? The
> phase speed which is 10*c ? Remember: For the co-moving
> observer the electron does not move. Only the double slit
> moves and the screen behind the double slit will be ca. 2%
> closer than in the standard case. But will that be a real
> change?
>
> I do not feel that this is a situation which in physically
> understood.
>
> Regards
> Albrecht
>
>
>
> Am 21.10.2015 um 16:34 schrieb John Williamson:
>
> 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
> <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> on behalf of Dr. Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <http://www.pa.uky.edu/%7Ekwng/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 lambda_deBroglie =
> lambda_photon / cos theta , but:
> lambda_deBroglie = lambda_photon * 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*mc^2 ) / h. So, the geometric distance
> of the wave maxima passing the slits is
> lambda_1 = c*h / (gamma*mc^2 ). 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
> <mailto: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
> <https://www.academia.edu/10235164/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_Fits_the_Schr%C3%B6dinger_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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
> <mailto: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>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
---
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/20151023/a6436de6/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list