[General] research papers
Adam K
afokay at gmail.com
Sat Oct 24 08:57:36 PDT 2015
John D,
Thanks for the link to Joy Christian (what a name!). I see no reason to
assume that the variables would be simply elements of a field (e.g. real
numbers). The 'hidden variables' seem far more likely to have the structure
of a 'hidden theory'. As that article points out, already the group of
rotations (very simple) is not abelian.
Adam
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 12:23 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com>
wrote:
> Adam:
>
>
>
> I share your sentiment. I am not a fan of “quantum mysticism”. I think Joy
> Christian is on the right lines, see:
>
>
>
> http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2007-November/001833.html
>
>
>
> http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10773-014-2412-2
>
>
>
> I haven’t read the latter yet.
>
>
>
>
>
> All:
>
>
>
> I’m going to be tied up next week, and may not be able to respond to
> emails.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> John D
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=
> btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Adam K
> *Sent:* 23 October 2015 00:19
> *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>; Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers
>
>
>
> Hi Martin,
>
>
>
> I knew about the angle of the detectors from Bell's inequalities, and I
> suppose also the experiments by Alain Aspect and the rest.
>
>
>
> But what you say may well be true. To be honest despite all my reading and
> thought on this, I've always wondered why other people think it is such a
> mystery. The simplest explanation is just as you say: it's some failure to
> grasp the essential point. Another alternative is that I have an assumption
> which is not shared by others which is explaining the thing satisfactorily
> to me. The final plausible alternative that I can think of now is what I
> said before: the formalism of QM leads people to think in a certain way
> about reality when in fact no such commitments are necessary. Then the
> reverse holds: other people have made assumptions that I have not made.
>
>
>
> It would be interesting to go over this in more detail, without talking
> about marbles, which would just get confusing. I'll open a new thread on
> this when I have the time.
>
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Mark, Martin van der <
> martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote:
>
> 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>
> 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 T0, 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 Tp=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 * Tp. During this time the photon will have moved by c * Tp
> on its helical path.
>
> Now the spacial distance between these two phase maxima, which is the
> wavelength, is: lambdaphoton = c * Tp, and lambdaelectron = v * Tp.
>
> 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>
> 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 = m0*c2/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 lambda1 = 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 lambdadB =
> h/(1*m*0), which is again infinite or at least extremely large. For the
> observer at rest there is lambdadB = 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]
> on behalf of Dr. Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 21, 2015 3:14 PM
> *To:* Richard Gauthier
> *Cc:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; David Mathes
> *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers
>
> Hello Richard,
>
> thanks for your detailed explanation. But I have a fundamental objection.
>
> Your figure 2 is unfortunately (but unavoidably) 2-dimensional, and that
> makes a difference to the reality as I understand it.
>
> In your model the charged electron moves on a helix around the axis of the
> electron (or equivalently the axis of the helix). That means that the
> electron has a constant distance to this axis. Correct? But in the view of
> your figure 2 the photon seems to start on the axis and moves away from it
> forever. In this latter case the wave front would behave as you write it.
>
> Now, in the case of a constant distance, the wave front as well intersects
> the axis, that is true. But this intersection point moves along the axis at
> the projected speed of the photon to this axis. - You can consider this
> also in another way. If the electron moves during a time, say T1, in the
> direction of the axis, then the photon will during this time T1 move a
> longer distance, as the length of the helical path (call it L) is of
> course longer than the length of the path of the electron during this time
> (call it Z). Now you will during the time T1 have a number of waves (call
> this N) on the helical path L. On the other hand, the number of waves on
> the length Z has also to be N. Because otherwise after an arbitrary time
> the whole situation would diverge. As now Z is smaller than L, the waves on
> the axis have to be shorter. So, not the de Broglie wave length. That is my
> understanding.
>
> In my present view, the de Broglie wave length has no immediate
> correspondence in the physical reality. I guess that the success of de
> Broglie in using this wave length may be understandable if we understand in
> more detail, what happens in the process of scattering of an electron at
> the double (or multiple) slits.
>
> Best wishes
> Albrecht
>
> Am 21.10.2015 um 06:28 schrieb
> Richard Gauthier:
>
> Hello Albrecht,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your effort to understand the physical process described
> geometrically in my Figure 2. You have indeed misunderstood the Figure as
> you suspected. The LEFT upper side of the big 90-degree triangle is one
> wavelength h/(gamma mc) of the charged photon, mathematically unrolled from
> its two-turned helical shape (because of the double-loop model of the
> electron) so that its full length h/(gamma mc) along the helical trajectory
> can be easily visualized. The emitted wave fronts described in my article
> are perpendicular to this mathematically unrolled upper LEFT side of the
> triangle (because the plane waves emitted by the charged photon are
> directed along the direction of the helix when it is coiled (or
> mathematically uncoiled), and the plane wave fronts are perpendicular to
> this direction). The upper RIGHT side of the big 90-degree triangle
> corresponds to one of the plane wave fronts (of constant phase along the
> wave front) emitted at one wavelength lambda = h/(gamma mc) of the
> helically circulating charged photon. The length of the horizontal base of
> the big 90-degree triangle, defined by where this upper RIGHT side of the
> triangle (the generated plane wave front from the charged photon)
> intersects the horizontal axis of the helically-moving charged photon, is
> the de Broglie wavelength h/(gamma mv) of the electron model (labeled in
> the diagram). By geometry the length (the de Broglie wavelength) of this
> horizontal base of the big right triangle in the Figure is equal to the top
> left side of the triangle (the photon wavelength h/(gamma mc) divided (not
> multiplied) by cos(theta) = v/c because we are calculating the hypotenuse
> of the big right triangle starting from the upper LEFT side of this big
> right triangle, which is the adjacent side of the big right triangle making
> an angle theta with the hypotenuse.
>
>
>
> What you called the projection of the charged photon’s wavelength
> h/(gamma mc) onto the horizontal axis is actually just the distance D that
> the electron has moved with velocity v along the x-axis in one period T of
> the circulating charged photon. That period T equals 1/f = 1/(gamma mc^2/h)
> = h/(gamma mc^2). By the geometry in the Figure, that distance D is the
> adjacent side of the smaller 90-degree triangle in the left side of the
> Figure, making an angle theta with cT, the hypotenuse of that smaller
> triangle, and so D = cT cos (theta) = cT x v/c = vT , the distance the
> electron has moved to the right with velocity v in the time T. In that same
> time T one de Broglie wavelength has been generated along the horizontal
> axis of the circulating charged photon.
>
>
>
> I will answer your question about the double slit in a separate e-mail.
>
>
>
> all the best,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> On Oct 20, 2015, at 10:06 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello Richard,
>
> thank you for your explanations. I would like to ask further questions and
> will place them into the text below.
>
> Am 19.10.2015 um 20:08 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>
> Hello Albrecht,
>
>
>
> Thank your for your detailed questions about my electron model, which
> I will answer as best as I can.
>
>
>
> My approach of using the formula e^i(k*r-wt) = e^i (k dot r minus
> omega t) for a plane wave emitted by charged photons is also used for
> example in the analysis of x-ray diffraction from crystals when you have
> many incoming parallel photons in free space moving in phase in a plane
> wave. Please see for example
> http://www.pa.uky.edu/~kwng/phy525/lec/lecture_2.pdf . When Max Born
> studied electron scattering using quantum mechanics (where he used PHI*PHI
> of the quantum wave functions to predict the electron scattering
> amplitudes), he also described the incoming electrons as a plane wave
> moving forward with the de Broglie wavelength towards the target. I think
> this is the general analytical procedure used in scattering experiments.
> In my charged photon model the helically circulating charged photon,
> corresponding to a moving electron, is emitting a plane wave of wavelength
> lambda = h/(gamma mc) and frequency f=(gamma mc^2)/h along the direction
> of its helical trajectory, which makes a forward angle theta with the
> helical axis given by cos (theta)=v/c. Planes of constant phase emitted
> from the charged photon in this way intersect the helical axis of the
> charged photon. When a charged photon has traveled one relativistic
> wavelength lambda = h/(gamma mc) along the helical axis, the intersection
> point of this wave front with the helical axis has traveled (as seen from
> the geometry of Figure 2 in my charged photon article) a distance
> lambda/cos(theta) = lambda / (v/c) = h/(gamma mv) i.e the relativistic de
> Broglie wavelength along the helical axis.
>
> Here I have a question with respect to your Figure 2. The circling charged
> photon is accompanied by a wave which moves at any moment in the direction
> of the photon on its helical path. This wave has its normal wavelength in
> the direction along this helical path. But if now this wave is projected
> onto the axis of the helix, which is the axis of the moving electron, then
> the projected wave will be shorter than the original one. So the equation
> will not be lambdadeBroglie = lambdaphoton / cos theta , but: lambda
> deBroglie = lambdaphoton * cos theta . The result will not be the
> (extended) de Broglie wave but a shortened wave. Or do I completely
> misunderstand the situation here?
>
> Or let's use another view to the process. Lets imagine a scattering
> process of the electron at a double slit. This was the experiment where the
> de Broglie wavelength turned out to be helpful.
> So, when now the electron, and that means the cycling photon, approaches
> the slits, it will approach at a slant angle theta at the layer which has
> the slits. Now assume the momentary phase such that the wave front reaches
> two slits at the same time (which means that the photon at this moment
> moves downwards or upwards, but else straight with respect to the azimuth).
> This situation is similar to the front wave of a *single* normal photon
> which moves upwards or downwards by an angle theta. There is now no phase
> difference between the right and the left slit. Now the question is whether
> this coming-down (or -up) will change the temporal sequence of the phases
> (say: of the maxima of the wave). This distance (by time or by length)
> determines at which angle the next interference maxima to the right or to
> the left will occur behind the slits.
>
> To my understanding the temporal distance will be the same distance as of
> wave maxima on the helical path of the photon, where the latter is lambda
> 1 = c / frequency; frequency = (gamma*mc2) / h. So, the geometric
> distance of the wave maxima passing the slits is lambda1 = c*h /
> (gamma*mc2). Also here the result is a shortened wavelength rather than
> an extended one, so not the de Broglie wavelength.
>
> Again my question: What do I misunderstand?
>
> For the other topics of your answer I essentially agree, so I shall stop
> here.
>
> Best regards
> Albrecht
>
>
>
> Now as seen from this geometry, the slower the electron’s velocity v,
> the longer is the electron’s de Broglie wavelength — also as seen from the
> relativistic de Broglie wavelength formula Ldb = h/(gamma mv). For a
> resting electron (v=0) the de Broglie wavelength is undefined in this
> formula as also in my model for v = 0. Here, for stationary electron, the
> charged photon’s emitted wave fronts (for waves of wavelength equal to the
> Compton wavelength h/mc) intersect the axis of the circulating photon
> along its whole length rather than at a single point along the helical
> axis. This condition corresponds to the condition where de Broglie said
> (something like) that the electron oscillates with the frequency given by f
> = mc^2/h for the stationary electron, and that the phase of the wave of
> this oscillating electron is the same at all points in space. But when the
> electron is moving slowly, long de Broglie waves are formed along the axis
> of the moving electron.
>
>
>
> In this basic plane wave model there is no limitation on how far to
> the sides of the charged photon the plane wave fronts extend. In a more
> detailed model a finite side-spreading of the plane wave would correspond
> to a pulse of many forward moving electrons that is limited in both
> longitudinal and lateral extent (here a Fourier description of the wave
> front for a pulse of electrons of a particular spatial extent would
> probably come into play), which is beyond the present description.
>
>
>
> You asked what an observer standing beside the resting electron, but
> not in the plane of the charged photon's internal circular motion) would
> observe as the circulating charged photon emits a plane wave long its
> trajectory. The plane wave’s wavelength emitted by the circling charged
> photon would be the Compton wavelength h/mc. So when the charged photon is
> moving more towards (but an an angle to) the stationary observer, he would
> observe a wave of wavelength h/mc (which you call c/ny where ny is the
> frequency of charged photon’s orbital motion) coming towards and past him.
> This is not the de Broglie wavelength (which is undefined here and is only
> defined on the helical axis of the circulating photon for a moving
> electron) but is the Compton wavelength h/mc of the circulating photon of a
> resting electron. As the charged photon moves more away from the observer,
> he would observe a plane wave of wavelength h/mc moving away from him in
> the direction of the receding charged photon. But it is more complicated
> than this, because the observer at the side of the stationary electron
> (circulating charged photon) will also be receiving all the other plane
> waves with different phases emitted at other angles from the circulating
> charged photon during its whole circular trajectory. In fact all of these
> waves from the charged photon away from the circular axis or helical axis
> will interfere and may actually cancel out or partially cancel out (I don’t
> know), leaving a net result only along the axis of the electron, which if
> the electron is moving, corresponds to the de Broglie wavelength along this
> axis. This is hard to visualize in 3-D and this is why I think a 3-D
> computer graphic model of this plane-wave emitting process for a moving or
> stationary electron would be very helpful and informative.
>
>
>
> You asked about the electric charge of the charged photon and how it
> affects this process. Clearly the plane waves emitted by the circulating
> charged photon have to be different from the plane waves emitted by an
> uncharged photon, because these plane waves generate the quantum wave
> functions PHI that predict the probabilities of finding electrons or
> photons respectively in the future from their PHI*PHI functions. Plus the
> charged photon has to be emitting an additional electric field (not emitted
> by a regular uncharged photon), for example caused by virtual uncharged
> photons as described in QED, that produces the electrostatic field of a
> stationary electron or the electro-magnetic field around a moving electron.
>
>
>
> I hope this helps. Thanks again for your excellent questions.
>
>
>
> with best regards,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 19, 2015, at 8:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Richard:
>
> I am still busy to understand the de Broglie wavelength from your model. I
> think that I understand your general idea, but I would like to also
> understand the details.
>
> If a photon moves straight in the free space, how does the wave look like?
> You say that the photon emits a plane wave. If the photon is alone and
> moves straight, then the wave goes with the photon. No problem. And the
> wave front is in the forward direction. Correct? How far to the sides is
> the wave extended? That may be important in case of the photon in the
> electron.
>
> With the following I refer to the figures 1 and 2 in your paper referred
> in your preceding mail.
>
> In the electron, the photon moves according to your model on a circuit. It
> moves on a helix when the electron is in motion. But let take us first the
> case of the electron at rest, so that the photon moves on this circuit. In
> any moment the plane wave accompanied with the photon will momentarily move
> in the tangential direction of the circuit. But the direction will
> permanently change to follow the path of the photon on the circuit. What is
> then about the motion of the wave? The front of the wave should follow this
> circuit. Would an observer next to the electron at rest (but not in the
> plane of the internal motion) notice the wave? This can only happen, I
> think, if the wave does not only propagate on a straight path forward but
> has an extension to the sides. Only if this is the case, there will be a
> wave along the axis of the electron. Now an observer next to the electron
> will see a modulated wave coming from the photon, which will be modulated
> with the frequency of the rotation, because the photon will in one moment
> be closer to the observer and in the next moment be farer from him. Which
> wavelength will be noticed by the observer? It should be lambda = c / ny,
> where c is the speed of the propagation and ny the frequency of the orbital
> motion. But this lambda is by my understanding not be the de Broglie wave
> length.
>
> For an electron at rest your model expects a wave with a momentarily
> similar phase for all points in space. How can this orbiting photon cause
> this? And else, if the electron is not at rest but moves at a very small
> speed, then the situation will not be very different from that of the
> electron at rest.
>
> Further: What is the influence of the charge in the photon? There should
> be a modulated electric field around the electron with a frequency ny which
> follows also from E = h*ny, with E the dynamical energy of the photon. Does
> this modulated field have any influence to how the electron interacts with
> others?
>
> Some questions, perhaps you can help me for a better understanding.
>
> With best regards and thanks in advance
> Albrecht
>
> PS: I shall answer you mail from last night tomorrow.
>
> Am 14.10.2015 um 22:32 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>
> Hello Albrecht,
>
>
>
> I second David’s question. The last I heard authoritatively, from
> cosmologist Sean Carroll - "The Particle at the End of the Universe”
> (2012), is that fermions are not affected by the strong nuclear force. If
> they were, I think it would be common scientific knowledge by now.
>
>
>
> You wrote: "I see it as a valuable goal for the further development to
> find an answer (a *physical *answer!) to the question of the de Broglie
> wavelength."
>
> My spin 1/2 charged photon model DOES give a simple physical explanation
> for the origin of the de Broglie wavelength. The helically-circulating
> charged photon is proposed to emit a plane wave directed along its helical
> path based on its relativistic wavelength lambda = h/(gamma mc) and
> relativistic frequency f=(gamma mc^2)/h. The wave fronts of this plane wave
> intersect the axis of the charged photon’s helical trajectory, which is the
> path of the electron being modeled by the charged photon, creating a de
> Broglie wave pattern of wavelength h/(gamma mv) which travels along the
> charged photon’s helical axis at speed c^2/v. For a moving electron, the
> wave fronts emitted by the charged photon do not intersect the helical axis
> perpendicularly but at an angle (see Figure 2 of my SPIE paper at
> https://www.academia.edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength )
> that is simply related to the speed of the electron being modeled. This
> physical origin of the electron’s de Broglie wave is similar to when a
> series of parallel and evenly-spaced ocean waves hits a straight beach at
> an angle greater than zero degrees to the beach — a wave pattern is
> produced at the beach that travels in one direction along the beach at a
> speed faster than the speed of the waves coming in from the ocean. But that
> beach wave pattern can't transmit “information” along the beach faster than
> the speed of the ocean waves, just as the de Broglie matter-wave can’t
> (according to special relativity) transmit information faster than light,
> as de Broglie recognized. As far as I know this geometric interpretation
> for the generation of the relativistic electron's de Broglie wavelength,
> phase velocity, and matter-wave equation is unique.
>
>
>
> For a resting (v=0) electron, the de Broglie wavelength lambda =
> h/(gamma mv) is not defined since one can’t divide by zero. It corresponds
> to the ocean wave fronts in the above example hitting the beach at a zero
> degree angle, where no velocity of the wave pattern along the beach can be
> defined.
>
>
>
> Schrödinger took de Broglie’s matter-wave and used it
> non-relativistically with a potential V to generate the Schrödinger equation
> and wave mechanics, which is mathematically identical in its predictions to
> Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics. Born interpreted Psi*Psi of the Schrödinger equation
> as the probability density for the result of an experimental measurement
> and this worked well for statistical predictions. Quantum mechanics was
> built on this de Broglie wave foundation and Born's probabilistic
> interpretation (using Hilbert space math.)
>
>
>
> The charged photon model of the electron might be used to derive the
> Schrödinger equation, considering the electron to be a circulating
> charged photon that generates the electron’s matter-wave, which depends on
> the electron’s variable kinetic energy in a potential field. This needs to
> be explored further, which I began in
> https://www.academia.edu/10235164/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_Fits_the_Schrödinger_Equation .
> Of course, to treat the electron relativistically requires the Dirac
> equation. But the spin 1/2 charged photon model of the relativistic
> electron has a number of features of the Dirac electron, by design.
>
>
>
> As to why the charged photon circulates helically rather than moving in
> a straight line (in the absence of diffraction, etc) like an uncharged
> photon, this could be the effect of the charged photon moving in the Higgs
> field, which turns a speed-of-light particle with electric charge into a
> less-than-speed-of-light particle with a rest mass, which in this case is
> the electron’s rest mass 0.511 MeV/c^2 (this value is not predicted by the
> Higgs field theory however.) So the electron’s inertia may also be caused
> by the Higgs field. I would not say that an unconfined photon has inertia,
> although it has energy and momentum but no rest mass, but opinions differ
> on this point. “Inertia” is a vague term and perhaps should be dropped— it
> literally means "inactive, unskilled”.
>
>
>
> You said that a faster-than-light phase wave can only be caused by a
> superposition of waves. I’m not sure this is correct, since in my charged
> photon model a single plane wave pattern emitted by the circulating charged
> photon generates the electron’s faster-than-light phase wave of speed c^2/v
> . A group velocity of an electron model may be generated by a superposition
> of waves to produce a wave packet whose group velocity equals the
> slower-than-light speed of an electron modeled by such an wave-packet
> approach.
>
>
>
> with best regards,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151024/5afe42e2/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list