[General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers
John Duffield
johnduffield at btconnect.com
Sat Oct 24 02:09:36 PDT 2015
John/Martin:
I think the best way to appreciate the photon thing is to imagine you’re
moving at the speed of light. You’re totally time dilated, for you there is
no local motion. But that’s all it is. Your departure and arrival are not
part of the same event. If you think that, I can soon disabuse you of this
notion because I know your course, and with a little help from Al, I can put
an asteroid in your way:
BLAM!
Remember that if you advocate anything that can be portrayed as woo, some
people will use it against you.
Regards
John D
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: 24 October 2015 08:45
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: 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] [SPAM?] Re: research papers
Look, before I go ...
If what you were saying were true, then every photon event would have to
LITERALLY bend all of space time to the same point. That is, manifestly, not
so. That is not what relativity is saying - or ever said. The Lorentz
contraction is a transformation of space to time and vice versa, not
literally - but from different perspectives (in the Leonardo sense). It is
just that the whole universe is a whole lot smaller for a photon. REALLY.
I do not get why people do not get this!
Look .. the photon has neither the emission energy nor the absorption energy
(always different to each other) but another energy. THINK ABOUT IT. It is
blindingly obvious when you get it and I do not think it is very hard. You
need to think energy and momentum not space and time (actually you need to
think both at once - so I suppose it IS a bit hard). It is explained in my
SPIE papers.
Cheers. JGW.
_____
From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
[af.kracklauer at web.de]
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 8:21 AM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Joakim Pettersson;
Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray; ARNOLD BENN
Subject: Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers
Hi Martin et al.:
Some points to ponder:
The zero-length notion from Minkowski analysis pertains to simultaniously
RECEIVED signals; they cannot be resolved by the seer in terms of their
origin's location or time-instant, thus, for him (i.e., anyone at his light
cone vertex) they have zero diffentiation. This cannot be turned on its
head to say that the two source events communicate instantaniously.
Tetrode, and others of his era, developed a field-free form of mechanics
that evades the famouls self field divergecies (as well as other, from this
point of view, spurious field-theory effects). In doing so, however, therir
arguments were huristic and sleightly faulty so that they concluded that
there is both backwards (on the light cone) and forwards (i.e. from the
future) interaction. If true, this ould mean that the present is 1/2
determined by the future! Not only is this a serious philosopical issue for
"causality" (although diminished by 50%) but even for rock-headed,
nonphilosophical mathematical physicists a serious problem in so far as it
renders the coupled equations of motion deduced by this school unsolvable in
that the whole solution must be known aforehand as initial conditions to
find a solution! Go figure. BTW, this problem was fixed in part by
Schwartzshild, but ignored ever since. Also, I have taken my own shots at
this target; see No. 6 on: www.non-loco-physics.0catch.com
<http://www.non-loco-physics.0catch.com>
Anyone wishing to support SR completely should feel compelled to enlighten
the critics as to the solution to the Eherenfest paradox. (Recall: the
issue is: what happens to the edge of a rapidly rotatiing disk---so much so
that its outer circumfeance should suffere Lorentz-contraction.) Estimates
indicate that at least stresses should be engendered that would be visible
as the bending of filer markks made across the diameter of the disk. T.
Phipps mounted a small disk on a dimond tip, drove it with compressed air to
>20K revs/sec. (my best recall) for 6 months. The filer mark did not bend.
Even under a microscope.
Modern field theories, including the so-called "Standard Model," inherited
these issues. There is LOTS of room for rumination. Even among the QM
founding fathers, only for Heisenberg and Bohr can it be thought that today
they would be truly orthodox. (Of course, even Bohr recognized the problems,
but talked as if his "word salad" resolved them. Perhaps it may be noticed
that, mental illness was no stranger in his family).
For what it's worth, Al
Gesendet: Freitag, 23. Oktober 2015 um 21:40 Uhr
Von: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> >
An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion"
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Cc: "Joakim Pettersson" <joakimbits at gmail.com <mailto:joakimbits at gmail.com>
>, "ARNOLD BENN" <arniebenn at mac.com <mailto:arniebenn at mac.com> >, "Anthony
Booth" <abooth at ieee.org <mailto:abooth at ieee.org> >, "Ariane Mandray"
<ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr <mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> >
Betreff: Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers
Dear Al,
yes I know and agree. That is, I'm not compleyely sure yet about Bell's
inequality, i need to study it more but have not found the time yet. In my
previous answers i have only addressed the things that I found to be
relevant for the discussion, such as getting the order of events correct and
giving some lead to understand why quantum mexhanics and special relativity
are in fact intimately related, and that this is de Broglie's contribution.
The whole EPR discussion between Bohr and Einstein took place much, much
later indeed. Here I tried to point out that there is a very strong idea
that is apparently to hard to digest by many and perhaps therefore not too
well known. It is the concept of zero interval for light speed waves by
Tetrode, Feynman and Wheeler that implies that emission and absorption are
part of the same event. Which in turn explains why quantum mystiscism only
looks mystical because we are tempted to take the causality assumptions that
may not be applied as we do.
Unfortunately, sorry Adam, many in this group still do not have a clue what
the EPR experiments are really telling us, but indeed it takes some
frustration, energy and preserverance to get it.
Very best,
Martin
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 23 okt. 2015 om 18:42 heeft "af.kracklauer at web.de" <af.kracklauer at web.de>
het volgende geschreven:
Hi Martin:
For whatever reason your review of history neglected the discussion of the
physical nature of a wave function. AE criticised its interpretation in
1927 at the Solvey Conf. it terms of a beam passing through a pin hole
centered on a semispherical detector. The detector, he noted, does not
respond at once over the whole of its surface, but only at flash points.
That is, the wave function for beam particles "collapses" to points
instantiously from its immediately preceeding finite existence just above
the detector surface. That is, superluminally. Singlet states and
entanglement, therefore, enter the story first about 35-40 years latter, and
don't seem relevant for these early criticisms. Also, von Neumann
dogmatized the collapse notion in 1923 with the idea of the "Projection
Hypothesis." Then proceeded to make a famous error, since noticed by many.
BTW, Bell did not employ conditionnal probabilities correctly in his
inequality derivation; so that it is correct only for uncorrelated events
actually. But he then used it for correlated events. Etc.
If you chose to respond, please don't do so sociologiclly, i.e., "everybody
knows" or the like. In stead, go straight for a logical or mathematical
error in the story as I unfolded it. Thanks.
ciao, Al
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. Oktober 2015 um 17:25 Uhr
Von: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion"
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: "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>
Betreff: Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers
Dear Adam, Richard and John W,
Thank you very much for the conversation and the links.
Adam,
indeed I was thinking of EPR and wave function collapse like spooky action
at a distance when I said that special relativity and quantum mechanics do
not seem to match. This is where Einstein was right and wrong at the same
time: Quantum mechanics is incomplete (right) but spooky action can and does
actually happen! Special relativity must and does still apply, but in an
unexpected way.
What Einstein helped to bring to the world was the idea that light is both a
wave and a particle (waves can behave as a particle: the photon). De Broglie
did the opposite: particles can be waves, and he did it all using Einstein’s
theory of relativity, E=hf and E=mc^2. De Broglie realized that both time
and frequency are important and that there must be harmony between them. If
I am correct, Schroedinger then made a wave theory out of this, first a
relativistic one which was second order in the time derivative, and didn’t
know how to deal with it. Then he invented the famous Schroedinger equation
that deals with it at non-relativistic speeds, but that also screws up the
phase and harmony of the wave function. Low speed energy and momentum are
fine, but all connection with the roots of it (special relativity) are lost.
What then about the non-local or non-causal aspects of the EPR experiment?
In essence, when we create a singlet state of two particles, the particles
share their phase(s). For example two phases (making a two-component spinor)
with a definite mutual relationship with each of the particles, if we have
two photons of arbitrary (but entangled) polarization. Wherever the photons
may, be upon projection of the singlet state, as happens during a
measurement of one of the particles, it will be the same for both, and be
travelling at the PHASE velocity. For massive particles this is essential.
This is all standard textbook stuff really, but from here we come on less
accepted ground, I am warning. For the photons, we only have to bring in the
fact that there is a zero interval for light-speed objects to understand
that emission and absorption are part of the same event (Tetrode, Feynman).
Causality is not in the direction of time, but in the transport of energy,
it seems
Best, Martin
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflighta
ndparticles.org] On Behalf Of Adam K
Sent: donderdag 22 oktober 2015 7:21
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: 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] [SPAM?] Re: research papers
John,
YES! Schrodinger said that the mathematical difficulties were always trivial
in the end. The real difficulties are conceptual. Anyone who tries to
discover knows this to be true. When you solve a math problem, the math
disappears, the symbols all speak for themselves and are perfectly
transparent.
Since we both love Einstein and Leonardo, here are my two favorite quotes
from both men:
"The Heisenberg-Bohr tranquilizing philosophy -- or religion? -- is so
delicately contrived that, for the time being, it provides a gentle pillow
for the true believer from which he cannot very easily be aroused. So let
him lie there." (Letter to Schrodinger)
and
"He who can go to the fountain does not go to the water jar." (Speaking of
taking knowledge from nature, rather than people. This is just my favorite
at the time, almost everything he says is phenomenal.)
I am pretty strongly convinced that within the next several years we will
see The Tranquilizing Philosophy revealed for the medieval, ridiculous sham
it is. When the curtain is drawn and the naked whelp revealed it will
become, for all posterity, far more interesting for what it says about the
fallibility and sociology of science than for any of its constitutive ideas
(insofar as it has any).
Adam
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:30 PM, John Williamson
<John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> >
wrote:
Dear Adam,
Thank you for your mail and your quotes and references about Einstein and de
Broglie.
I could not agree more. The process of making REAL progress in physics is,
pretty much, entirely intuition. Intuition where one keeps, at once, the
whole of physics-as-we-know-it in mind. It is, pretty much, absolutely
nothing to do with mere mathematics.
Making REAL progress is very very hard indeed. THis is why, pretty much, it
only happens about once a century - if that.
It must be carefully felt, tested against a host of things one thinks one
knows. Written down. Have pictures drawn of it. Talk about it with friends
over a beer. Throw away many, many (MANY!) tentative trials and ideas.
Explore many possibilities. Eventually, try to slot it carefully into the
(eventually) ONE thing that is the whole of natural philosophy and compare
it with its match both to that and to ALL of experiment. Tricky. Fun! It is
even fun to try, and fail.
I, too, think that Einstein was on the right path (or at least lost in the
woods where I think the right path lay) for the majority of his later career
where most people now think he was wasting his time. For me it is tragic and
almost physically painful to see him lose the important thread, of
understanding how (4) current and field intertwined, and then see that huge
intellect struggle with the consequences of missing the start of that path.
Waite talks about this (see ref in my papers). Einstein was so very very
good that no one else, as far as I know, was even in the same wood at the
time (even de Broglie and Dirac, who, in this analogy, were up on nearby
hilltops at the time). Most, now, dismiss the area as a useless wasteland
(including in this both Dirac and de Broglies hilltops). I just wish I could
have met Einstein there (and had a nice wee chat over a cup of tea made on a
campfire) - but he died at just about the point I was conceived. I love the
man - and have tried to read everything he has written (in whatever language
he wrote it). The only others who give me quite so much pure intellectual
pleasure (if anyone is up for that) are, indeed, Leonardo and de Broglie
(even just his exquisite French is pure joy) . Feynmann and Dirac come close
- but not very close. One possible chap at the same sort of level, for me,is
a man called (Gordon) Pask – but I would not recommend anyone trying his
stuff unless they feel they have a strong constitution. If you do talk to
Nick Green.
For what it is worth, for me, de Broglies pinnacle is his "harmony of
phases" and Dirac's his ideas about charge as gauge (series of 3 papers in
the fifties - thread now closed - except for me) .
Martin and have a camp in the wood now if anyone would like to visit!
Regards, John.
_____
From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 4:49 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Joakim Pettersson; ARNOLD BENN; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray
Subject: [SPAM?] Re: [General] research papers
Hello Adam and others,
The book “Quantum theory at the crossroads” is also available online at
arxiv.org <http://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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> >
Cc: Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> >; Joakim Pettersson
<joakimbits at gmail.com <mailto:joakimbits at gmail.com> >; ARNOLD BENN
<arniebenn at mac.com <mailto:arniebenn at mac.com> >; Anthony Booth
<abooth at ieee.org <mailto:abooth at ieee.org> >; Ariane Mandray
<ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr <mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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.natureoflightandparticl
es.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
<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/%7Ekwng/phy525/lec/lecture_2.pdf>
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 lambda1
= 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
<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_gen
erating_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_F
its_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
_____
<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
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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
<mailto:afokay at gmail.com>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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
<mailto:afokay at gmail.com>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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 af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
_______________________________________________
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-natureo
flightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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 af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151024/8a7cfef1/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list