[General] [SPAM?] Re: research papers

[Adam K]

Richard,

Yeah, that's a good one. I've always liked this one, from Karl Popper:  *The
Copenhagen interpretation - or, more precisely, the view of the status of
quantum mechanics which Bohr and Heisenberg defended - was, quite simply,
that quantum mechanics was the last, the final, the never-to-be-surpassed
revolution in physics. [...] These were claimed to show that physics has
reached the end of the road...**this epistemological claim I regarded, and
still regard, as outrageous.*

I doubt that Bohr et al. would have explicitly made such a claim, but I
believe Popper that their positions boiled down to this claim. There is
much instruction for us in the strange repetition of history in this
regard. Physicists seem to have a habit of considering that the picture is
complete and now there is only a bit of dustpan work to be done.

Adam


On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 5:10 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Adam, and all
>
> On the subject of interpreting quantum mechanics, here's a nice quote from
> Murray Gell-Mann which some of you may know: "The fact that an adequate
> philosophical presentation has been so long delayed is no doubt caused by
> the fact that Niels Bohr brainwashed a whole generation of theorists into
> thinking that the job was done 50 years ago." From "The Nature of the
> Physical Universe: 1976 Nobel Conference", John Wiley & Sons, 1979, p 29. I
> copied this quote from the book itself. I read somewhere else (but could
> not confirm) that Gell-Mann also expressed the same idea in his Nobel
> lecture, which unfortunately was never published.
> Richard
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2015, at 6:24 PM, Adam K <afokay at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Chip -- I agree with this in the essentials. Wave collapse is the kind of
> bad idea you are forced to take seriously when you accept bad axioms. It's
> like theodicy in that way, which is why I call the present situation in
> physics medieval. Likewise entanglement is something I am highly, highly
> dubious about in the usual sense (I think it exists in a certain sense).
> The attempt to interpret QM as a complete theory leads to identifying a
> single particle with a superposition of statistically weighted outcomes
> (which incidentally is normed arbitrarily as de Broglie pointed out as
> lately as the 80s) which predicts the findings perfectly *when you do the
> experiment enough times*. Rather than draw slanderous graffiti over one
> of the pillars of physics in the temple of truth, claiming that there is no
> such thing as a fact of the matter because we cannot know even in theory,
> maybe we humans should work a little harder at discovering the mystery. I
> also agree with you about particles being extended (though I don't agree
> with the picture you have cited). I have no doubt they have internal
> structure. The electron has been experimentally confirmed to be pointlike
> to some insane accuracy, 10^-18 or something, but John W is quite right on
> this 'point' I think: there is a world of difference between point and
> pointlike.
>
> Al --  "Give that up, as Einstein advocated, and the wizardry can be sent
> back to Hollywood."
>
> Hahaha! You certainly have a way with words. I am in Hollywood right now,
> and I can tell you it makes a lot more sense than the Copenhagen Evasion of
> Quantum Mechanics. Also, I'm curious about how you can explain EPR with
> optics, but the link you keep providing seems to be broken badly.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:04 AM, <af.kracklauer at web.de> wrote:
>
>> Dear Mark & followers:
>>
>> SR critics object only to what I describe as the "ontological" model of
>> time-dilation & LF-contraction, not the "perspective" model (often easily
>> recognized by the appearance of the term "synchronized" time). Unrestricted
>> SR supports respond to this criticism almost always by explaing how the
>> "perspective" view point explains many historical 'paradox's'.  But, of
>> course, their explantion is beside the point, as the critics already do not
>> object to the perspctive view point.  Always, the outsider criticism
>> pertains to some phenomena in which there is a direct geometrical
>> modification of some material entity, say, Bell's string between rockets,
>> the rim of Ehrenfest's disk, the biological age of 'twins', etc.  A few of
>> the supporters of the ontological model actually hypothesize SR effects
>> modifyoing molecular forces determinig the size of atoms.  I don't see it.
>> Dieks us a very suave and cultivated gentleman, but as a physicist, he is
>> either just as confused as most, or an addicted crowd pleaser (tell'em what
>> they want to hear).
>>
>> Muon expriemnts are still a problem (for me for certain).  They appear to
>> show time dilation alright, but not as a perspective effect involving light
>> rays back and forth to an observer.  Of course, the muons are in fact in
>> E&M interchange with the lab in storage rings, so there is hope there,
>> maybe.  But I can't yet fathom the details.  All E&M interchange is
>> equivalent to "observation,"  so in this sence perspective has a material
>> effect on the interaction of all chages and all charge ensembles.
>>
>> Re: EPR experiments:  Whatever you think, mostly just hear, Bell's
>> so-called "theorem," absolutely precludes explaining the experiments with a
>> both 'local' and 'real' (where this means no human induced wasve packet
>> collapse, i.e., the moon is there even when nobody is looking) model.  If
>> one grants that classical physics meets these creiteria, then EPRniks have
>> a problem.  As can be found in my past papers (all available on
>> www.non-loco-physics.0catch.com) you will see that so far I have not
>> found an EPR experiment that cannot be explained with classical optics.  I
>> do not walk on water or multiply fishes; this is no miracle!  It is easy
>> becasue Bell made a mistake---as Jaynes discovered.  (I am convinced
>> Jaynes, and students, would have found these classical explantions first
>> had he not died shortly after publishing his Bell criticism.)
>>
>> It is also concievable that Bell then died of shock when he read Jaynes'
>> report a year or so latter.  At the time he virtually had a ticket to
>> Stockholm in his pocket, that went up, not as smoke, but, maybe, as a
>> "collapsed wave packet"!
>>
>> BTW, the use of the singlet state introduces a profound mystification
>> within EPR analysis,  It is a state, supposedly ontological, that has NEVER
>> bees seen.  It is said that, measuring one side collapses both---von
>> Neumann again. Further, it is a logical aboniation: as the sum of two
>> mutally exclusive options.  [What I see it as, is a proxy for the ensemble
>> of equal numbers of its component parts.  It has the same average, and
>> therefore in certain calculations gives the same result.  But it itself is
>> not a memeber of the ensemble. This would be Einstein's view too; QM is
>> just a statistical meta theory, like Thermodynamcis. All of its results
>> pertain to "expectations" or averages.]  In any case, with these concepts
>> it takes no logical jujitsu to explain EPR or the subsequent entanglement
>> experiments.
>>
>> In fact, whatever the relationship of QM is to SR, entanglement and its
>> imagined uses, has no rational connection to SR or GR or, especially,
>> optics of any breed. It is an animal fantasized in the effort to consider
>> QM a complete (not statistical) theory.  Give that up, as Einstein
>> advocated, and the wizardry can be sent back to Hollywood.
>>
>> ciao,  Al
>>
>>
>>
>> Gesendet: Samstag, 24. Oktober 2015 um 18:08 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 all,
>>
>> thanks for the interesting exchange of opinions, ideas, good explanations
>> but also some mistakes.
>>
>> It seems very hard to ask one thing or to explain that thing without
>> getting into another, each having issues, but well  here I go again.
>>
>> In order to make progress it is important to stick as close to the
>> subject as possible until ideas are exhausted.
>>
>>
>> First Eherenfest’s rotating wheel is a paradox (a seemingly
>> contradictory matter). As mentioned and discussed here recently, special
>> relativity makes things look weird as a consequence of perspective by the
>> observer only. The Lorentz contraction is only happening to the projection
>> in the propagation direction of an object, and in fact, real objects would
>> be seen as rotated away from the observer on the front side of the motion,
>> so much in severe cases, that you can actually see its backside well before
>> it passes at right angles. Obviously this has repercussions on the
>> Eherenfest wheel.
>>
>> The brim does not shrink, really, nor do the spokes, of course. Now I am
>> not going to claim that I understand every detail, simply because I have
>> never seen such a wheel (these things tend to fly apart before they reach
>> even moderate speed), and others have written good papers about it. The
>> Sagnac effect is real and used in airplanes as a gyroscope, and this shows
>> there is an interesting thing happening with the measurement of time when
>> going (over the brim) in the direction of rotation compared to going
>> against it, see Dieks’ papers for an in depth analysis. This is another
>> re-introduction to the De Broglie wavelength, by the way.
>>
>>
>> Second I would like to point out that EPR experiments are strange
>> beasts, and that this can be appreciated INDEPENDENT of (the validity of)
>> Bell’s inequalities.
>>
>> Adam came up with a nice story about two marbles of opposite color, put
>> in closed envelopes and sent off to well separated receivers.
>>
>> This is a very good analogy to begin and compare  to an EPR experiment of
>> a singlet state of two photons or two fermions (of whatever nature,
>> electrons for example).
>>
>> The analogy is such that the color of the marble one receives represents
>> the spin or polarization state of the particle when it is detected.
>>
>> Now, in the EPR experiment a photon can be polarized in many ways: the
>> complete set of possible states covers the Poincare’ sphere, where the
>> equator has all orientations of linear polarization, the poles correspond
>> to left and right circular polarization and the rest of the surface to all
>> kinds of elliptical polarization. The pure state, a singlet state, has two
>> photons with polarization states exactly on opposite sides of the sphere.
>> (For fermions it works exactly the same, but the sphere is called the Bloch
>> sphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloch_sphere ). It should be noted
>> that in a pure state, the particles are in coherence; they share the phase
>> of their (single) wave function, and whatever their future evolution,
>> together they must, amongst others, conserve momentum and angular momentum.
>>
>> In an EPR experiment it is essential to try to measure the polarization
>> state. If the polarizers are removed, the whole thing is trivial, there
>> will be a click on both detectors, whatever.
>>
>> With the polarizers in place (linear, circular, elliptic, really any
>> orientation) it becomes quite interesting. In analogy with the marbles,
>> each specific state on the Poincare sphere now corresponds to a different
>> color, and we can make a convenient rule such as we are used to with the
>> color circle where opposite colors combined give “white”
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_wheel . In the marble experiment the
>> detector and polarizer are made by the mailbox and the slit respectively,
>> and the slit either accepts or rejects. Further, the slit projects the
>> color of the marble according to its own state, for example when the slit
>> is mounted vertically, it transmits red with 100% certainty but rejects
>> green with 100% certainty. Would an orange marble arrive, it may pass the
>> slit with perhaps 50% chance and is stripped from its yellow component,
>> leaving a purely red marble in the mailbox.
>>
>> Note that I am translating the real EPR experiment into the marble
>> experiment, that is all I do. In the real experiment, photon is transmitted
>> whole or not at all, but if transmitted it is projected into the
>> polarization state of the analyzing polarizer, so that is what we must
>> demand is happening to the marbles too.
>>
>> In Adam’s explanation there is no mystery because the example does not
>> resemble an EPR experiment. In the example given above the mystery is about
>> to happen: The blue counterpart of the orange marble arrives at the other
>> mailbox, who’s slit may have any orientation. What we know for certain in
>> an EPR experiment is, however, that a parallel slit will 100% accept red
>> and 100% reject green (in the latter case we may but a waste bin below the
>> mailbox to collect the marble, as can be done in photonics by the use of a
>> polarizing beam splitter and two detectors). Since we have measured the
>> orange marble to be red ( with equal probability it could have been
>> rejected, and labeled green), the other marble seems to have changed color,
>> wherever it is or will be, it will respond as if it is green, not blue. In
>> other words, it will pass a horizontal slit for green with 100% certainty,
>> despite the fact that we had assumed that it is blue. So now this means
>> that the sender must have put red and green, and not blue and orange
>> marbles in the respective envelopes. But what if I change the orientation
>> of the mailbox’s slit while the postman is still eating lunch? So this is
>> where the mystery is. In fact the whole idea of a coherent singlet state is
>> that it has total spin zero, and that is all you know: the marbles are grey
>> and anti-grey, equally potent to giving white and black or red and green or
>> blue and orange for orthogonal slits.
>>
>> So at this level it is mysterious if one takes causality and finite speed
>> of propagation of information seriously. Yet it is what experiment shows to
>> be the case. (and what quantum mechanics predicts, but that is not the
>> point)
>>
>> There is lot more that I could say about 3 particle correlations GHZ
>> (Greenberg Horner Zeilinger) entanglement, etcetera, so that any seemingly
>> cunning objection is dealt with straight away, but that is also not the
>> point. As a matter of fact, to any one, try to argue why it is a mystery
>> and spooky or why not until you have come to total agreement and awe with
>> what nature has to offer. And please do not tell me about it.
>>
>>
>> It has been shown that a local hidden variable theory cannot solve the
>> matter of the EPR experiment, the essence of the mystery is in the
>> non-locality (non-causality in another Lorentz frame) of the events. The
>> so-called collapse of the wave function (even for a single particle) is as
>> problematic, I would say.
>>
>>
>> A problem can only be solved if one is aware that it exists at all in the
>> first place. So that is the next task, and faster than light phase
>> velocity, coherence and zero interval are going to be part of it, I
>> believe. That however takes me away from explaining physics as it is
>> generally known and accepted and I would be talking about my own work. I
>> will give a glimpse of that in the next two points.
>>
>>
>> Third, John D you are right, there is a further explanation required.
>> The zero interval idea for photons is in fact about an ALMOST but not quite
>> zero interval: For example an emission of a photon, leading to an
>> absorption at some distance by a detector in the same Lorentz frame implies
>> that there is  a finite length in the problem as a whole, Another example
>> is that of an emission of a photon by an atom with short lived state, hence
>> a short coherence length of the photon, also has a finite length or life
>> time that must be taken into account. The result is that the phase and
>> group transit time of the photon are never going to be exactly the same
>> (although very closely the same) even in a non-dispersive medium. Hence the
>> vent of absorption and emission are still distinguishable, but always in
>> each other’s near field and therefore coupled with essentially zero phase
>> difference.
>>
>> Sometimes I refer to this as: No photon can be on shell.
>>
>>
>> Fourth, causality and locality are what All has pointed out correctly in
>> an email just sent out minutes ago.
>>
>> Can we see any kind of influence faster than light? It does not seem to
>> be possible, but if we have a coherent state, putatively, the phase
>> velocity of the fields within can actually help to communicate between the
>> two particles since on the one hand the phase velocity is faster than
>> light, v_phase = c^2/v_particle, and on the other hand the particles
>> maintain their own internal, synchronized clocks. So this is signaling
>> without energy transfer. Only when you are part of that coherent state
>> yourself you may be able to take advantage, from the outside we never know
>> the relative phase of any of the clocks and cannot therefore determine how
>> the wave function ends (is projected and  altered) on a detector and how or
>> when the detector will fire.
>>
>>
>> I hope this helps.
>>
>> Best, Martin
>>
>>
>> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=
>> philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John
>> Duffield
>> Sent: zaterdag 24 oktober 2015 11:10
>> 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/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.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <http://general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.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.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of
>> af.kracklauer at web.de [af.kracklauer at web.de]
>> Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 8:21 AM
>> To: 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
>>
>>
>> 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>
>> 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 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.natureoflightandparticles.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> 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.natureoflightandparticles.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 at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609184 .
>>
>>          Richard
>>
>>
>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:20 PM, Adam K <afokay at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Martin,
>>
>>
>> So the story of Einstein vs Bohr at Solvay is exceedingly interesting, as
>> is de Broglie's attempt there to interpret quantum physics in a non-crazy
>> way.
>>
>>
>> This book
>> http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Crossroads-Reconsidering-Conference/dp/1107698316
>> is pretty interesting on the subject.
>>
>>
>> It is specifically cast as a revisitation of de Broglie's pilot wave
>> hypothesis, and why it gained no traction at the time. Pauli is made into
>> something of a villain.
>>
>>
>> This review http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.5956.pdf is not particularly
>> sympathetic to the authors' thesis, but is an interesting quick read and
>> contains some great quotes by de Broglie.
>>
>>
>> I am not sure what you mean about people thinking QM cannot be reconciled
>> with special relativity. Are you talking about entanglement and spooky
>> action at a distance? (EPR).
>>
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Mark, Martin van der <
>> martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Adam,
>>
>> thank you for that, I do agree. Contrary to popular believes, I think
>> Einstein was more right about  almost anything than he perhaps believed
>> himself. But this is just my personal opinion.
>>
>> But that does not mean I disagree very much with Richard. In fact
>> Einstein and the rest of physicists were not yet ready for the next thing
>> after relativity: quantum mechanics. Planck was there, but he had his own
>> opinion. Einstein did actually get the photon concept, of course.
>> Rutherford added an important piece of the puzzle.
>>
>>
>> And then came Bohr with his model of the atom. And then the other famous
>> quantum people.
>>
>> There is one that got famous, but not quite as famous as he should have
>> been. At one Solvay conference Bohr’s PR and style of arguing apparently
>> won at the cost of the point of view of Louis de Broglie’s.
>>
>> As a consequence, we still suffer and the masses believe that quantum
>> mechanics cannot be reconciled with special relativity. The opposite is
>> true: Louis de Broglie DERIVED quantum mechanics from special relativity.
>> Even better, EPR experiments are in accordance with special relativity, see
>> Feynman, Wheeler, Tetrode and Carver Mead.
>>
>> All that is left from de Broglie is his wavelength, and his Harmony of
>> Phases, which he derived from special relativity, is hardly known by the
>> physics community.
>>
>>
>> Cheers, Martin
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Adam K [mailto:afokay at gmail.com <http://afokay@gmail.com/>]
>> Sent: donderdag 22 oktober 2015 0:06
>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> Cc: Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>; Joakim
>> Pettersson <joakimbits at gmail.com>; ARNOLD BENN <arniebenn at mac.com>;
>> Anthony Booth <abooth at ieee.org>; Ariane Mandray <
>> ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>
>>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [General] research papers
>>
>>
>>
>> "If he had been more clever and intuitive,"
>>
>>
>> My own beliefs impel me point out that this is a hugely presumptuous
>> thing to say about Einstein, even as a joke. Einstein was arguably the
>> paradigm of intuition. All of the below quotes on intuition are by him:
>>
>> “Indeed, it is not intellect, but intuition which advances humanity.
>> Intuition tells man his purpose in this life.”
>>
>> “The mind can proceed only so far upon what it knows and can prove. There
>> comes a point where the mind takes a leap—call it intuition or what you
>> will—and comes out upon a higher plane of knowledge, but can never prove
>> how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap.”
>>
>> “I believe in intuition and inspiration. At times I feel certain I am
>> right while not knowing the reason. When the eclipse of 1919 confirmed my
>> intuition, I was not in the least surprised. In fact I would have been
>> astonished had it turned out otherwise. “
>>
>> “The supreme task of the physicist is the discovery of the most general
>> elementary laws from which the world-picture can be deduced logically. But
>> there is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is
>> only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying
>> behind the appearance, and this *Einfühlung *(feeling-one’s-way-in) is
>> developed by experience.”
>>
>> L. de Broglie referred to Einstein's theory of relativity as "un effort
>> intellectuel peut-être sans exemple." His own investigations were a
>> matter of passion for him, "une difficulté qui m'a longtemps intrigué" and
>> he would not have thought Einstein should have been more clever or
>> intuitive. Finally, it was Einstein's intuition that led him to recognize
>> immediately that de Broglie was onto something serious with his thesis,
>> when it was passed to him from de Broglie's examiners, who had no clue what
>> to make of it.
>>
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>>    Right you are. As I remember Einstein's 1905 article “Is the inertia
>> of matter a measure of its energy content?" (it’s been a while), Einstein
>> imagined two emitted rays of light of equal frequency moving in opposite
>> directions coming from a stationary mass. When the rest frame of the mass
>> and the two oppositely moving rays of light is shifted to a moving frame
>> and the mass is moving in the same direction as one of the light rays, the
>> light ray moving in the direction of the mass’ velocity gains more energy
>> from the relativistic Doppler shift than the light ray moving in the other
>> direction loses, leaving a net gain in the energy of the two light rays
>> from the moving mass, as measured in this moving frame. Einstein equated
>> this net gain in energy of the two oppositely moving light rays with the
>> energy lost by the mass when it emitted the two light rays, and from this
>> he derived E= mc^2  (modern terms). If he had been more clever and
>> intuitive, he would have also in 1905 derived the de Broglie wavelength for
>> a moving electron, which comes from setting his two energy formulas  —  E =
>> hf for a photon’s energy and  E = gamma mc^2 for an electron's total energy
>> — equal to each other:  hf = gamma mc^2 , which together imply (not
>> logically but intuitively) that an electron is a circulating charged photon
>> generating the de Broglie wavelength. But he unfortunately didn’t do this,
>> and missed out on a second Nobel. If he had done this we would
>> unfortunately never have heard of M. Louis de Broglie and "la comedie
>> francaise". Instead it would have been "la comedie suisse". With these two
>> “errors” (photons and matter waves) on his scientific resume, instead of
>> just one, Einstein probably would never have received Planck’s
>> recommendation for a job in Berlin.
>>
>>      all the best,
>>
>>           Richard
>>
>>
>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 10:18 AM, Mark, Martin van der <
>> martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Richard, just for the record, E=mc^2 came before de Broglie and he in
>> turn came  before schroedinger and quantummechanics,
>>
>> Cheers, Martin
>>
>>
>>
>> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
>>
>>
>> Op 21 okt. 2015 om 18:40 heeft Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>> Hello John and Albrecht and all,
>>
>>      Yes, I’m very much aware that the de Broglie wavelength can be
>> generated from the relativistic Doppler interference of two Compton
>> wavelength waves moving in opposite directions. This is the
>> light-in-a-box-standing-wave-transferred-into-another-relativistic-frame
>> explanation and I used it also in a previous circulating-photon electron
>> model to generate the de Broglie wavelength, just as Martin did in 1991 and
>> you and  Martin did in your 1997 paper and John M also did. I think
>> Einstein used it in his 1905 paper to derive E=mc^2.  My derivation was
>> independent of your paper, which I hadn’t read when I gave my derivation,
>> which was borrowed from the derivation of an electron modeler with a “space
>> resonance” model of the electron. He though my approach to the electron was
>> “clever, but wrong”. I refrained from returning the compliment. All these
>> derivations requires that there are waves moving in opposite directions and
>> interfering to generate the de Broglie wavelength. In my spin-1/2 charged
>> photon model however, the de Broglie wavelength is generated, without wave
>> interference, from a helically circulating charged photon moving in a
>> longitudinally forward direction and emitting plane waves along the
>> direction the charged photon is moving along the helix. This derivation
>> generates along the helical z-axis the de Broglie relativistic matter-wave
>> equation PHI = A e^i(kz-wt) for a moving electron having the relativistic
>> de Broglie wavelength h/(gamma mv).
>>
>>      Albrecht, a reply for your "fundamental objection” to my model is in
>> process. Don’t worry, I can answer it.
>>
>> with best wishes,
>>
>>              Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 7:34 AM, John Williamson <
>> John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> The de Broglie wavelength is best understood, in my view, in one of two
>> ways. Either read de Broglies thesis for his derivation (if you do not read
>> french, Al has translated it and it is available online). Alternatively
>> derive it yourself. All you need to do is consider the interference between
>> a standing wave in one (proper frame) as it transforms to other
>> relativistic frames. That is standing-wave light-in-a-box. This has been
>> done by may folk, many times. Martin did it back in 1991. It is in our 1997
>> paper. One of the nicest illustrations I have seen is that of John M -
>> circulated to all of you earlier in this series.
>>
>> It is real, and quite simple.
>>
>> Regards, John.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=
>> glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Dr.
>> Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 3:14 PM
>> To: Richard Gauthier
>> Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; David Mathes
>> Subject: Re: [General] research papers
>>
>> Hello Richard,
>>
>> thanks for your detailed explanation. But I have a fundamental objection.
>>
>> Your figure 2 is unfortunately (but unavoidably) 2-dimensional, and that
>> makes a difference to the reality as I understand it.
>>
>> In your model the charged electron moves on a helix around the axis of
>> the electron (or equivalently the axis of the helix). That means that the
>> electron has a constant distance to this axis. Correct? But in the view of
>> your figure 2 the photon seems to start on the axis and moves away from it
>> forever. In this latter case the wave front would behave as you write it.
>>
>> Now, in the case of a constant distance, the wave front as well
>> intersects the axis, that is true. But this intersection point moves along
>> the axis at the projected speed of the photon to this axis. - You can
>> consider this also in another way. If the electron moves during a time, say
>> T1, in the direction of the axis, then the photon will during this time T1
>> move a longer distance, as the length of the helical path (call it L)  is
>> of course longer than the length of the path of the electron during this
>> time (call it Z). Now you will during the time T1 have a number of waves
>> (call this N) on the helical path L. On the other hand, the number of waves
>> on the length Z has also to be N. Because otherwise after an arbitrary time
>> the whole situation would diverge. As now Z is smaller than L, the waves on
>> the axis have to be shorter. So, not the de Broglie wave length. That is my
>> understanding.
>>
>> In my present view, the de Broglie wave length has no immediate
>> correspondence in the physical reality. I guess that the success of de
>> Broglie in using this wave length may be understandable if we understand in
>> more detail, what happens in the process of scattering of an electron at
>> the double (or multiple) slits.
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Albrecht
>>
>> Am 21.10.2015 um 06:28 schrieb
>> Richard Gauthier:
>>
>> Hello Albrecht,
>>
>>
>>    Thank you for your effort to understand the physical process described
>> geometrically in my Figure 2. You have indeed misunderstood the Figure as
>> you suspected. The LEFT upper side of the big 90-degree triangle is one
>> wavelength h/(gamma mc) of the charged photon, mathematically unrolled from
>> its two-turned helical shape (because of the double-loop model of the
>> electron) so that its full length h/(gamma mc) along the helical trajectory
>> can be easily visualized. The emitted wave fronts described in my article
>> are perpendicular to this mathematically unrolled upper LEFT side of the
>> triangle (because the plane waves emitted by the charged photon are
>> directed along the direction of the helix when it is coiled (or
>> mathematically uncoiled), and the plane wave fronts are perpendicular to
>> this direction). The upper RIGHT side of the big 90-degree triangle
>> corresponds to one of the plane wave fronts (of constant phase along the
>> wave front) emitted at one wavelength lambda = h/(gamma mc) of the
>> helically circulating charged photon. The length of the horizontal base of
>> the big 90-degree triangle, defined by where this upper RIGHT side of the
>> triangle (the generated plane wave front from the charged photon)
>> intersects the horizontal axis of the helically-moving charged photon, is
>> the de Broglie wavelength h/(gamma mv) of the electron model (labeled in
>> the diagram). By geometry the length (the de Broglie wavelength) of this
>> horizontal base of the big right triangle in the Figure is equal to the top
>> left side of the triangle (the photon wavelength h/(gamma mc) divided (not
>> multiplied) by cos(theta) = v/c because we are calculating the hypotenuse
>> of the big right triangle starting from the upper LEFT side of this big
>> right triangle, which is the adjacent side of the big right triangle making
>> an angle theta with the hypotenuse.
>>
>>
>>    What you called the projection of the charged photon’s wavelength
>> h/(gamma mc) onto the horizontal axis is actually just the distance D that
>> the electron has moved with velocity v along the x-axis in one period T of
>> the circulating charged photon. That period T equals 1/f = 1/(gamma mc^2/h)
>> = h/(gamma mc^2). By the geometry in the Figure, that distance D is the
>> adjacent side of the smaller 90-degree triangle in the left side of the
>> Figure, making an angle theta with cT,  the hypotenuse of that smaller
>> triangle, and so D = cT cos (theta) = cT x v/c = vT , the distance the
>> electron has moved to the right with velocity v in the time T. In that same
>> time T one de Broglie wavelength has been generated along the horizontal
>> axis of the circulating charged photon.
>>
>>
>>    I will answer your question about the double slit in a separate e-mail.
>>
>>
>>         all the best,
>>
>>             Richard
>>
>>
>> On Oct 20, 2015, at 10:06 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hello Richard,
>>
>> thank you for your explanations. I would like to ask further questions
>> and will place them into the text below.
>>
>> Am 19.10.2015 um 20:08 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>
>> Hello Albrecht,
>>
>>
>>     Thank your for your detailed questions about my electron model, which
>> I will answer as best as I can.
>>
>>
>>      My approach of using the formula e^i(k*r-wt)    =  e^i (k dot r
>> minus omega t)  for a plane wave emitted by charged photons is also used
>> for example in the analysis of x-ray diffraction from crystals when you
>> have many incoming parallel photons in free space moving in phase in a
>> plane wave. Please see for example
>> http://www.pa.uky.edu/~kwng/phy525/lec/lecture_2.pdf . When Max Born
>> studied electron scattering using quantum mechanics (where he used PHI*PHI
>> of the quantum wave functions to predict the electron scattering
>> amplitudes), he also described the incoming electrons as a plane wave
>> moving forward with the de Broglie wavelength towards the target. I think
>> this is the general analytical procedure used in scattering experiments.
>> In my charged photon model the helically circulating charged photon,
>> corresponding to a moving electron, is emitting a plane wave of wavelength
>> lambda = h/(gamma mc) and frequency f=(gamma mc^2)/h  along the direction
>> of its helical trajectory, which makes a forward angle theta with the
>> helical axis given by cos (theta)=v/c. Planes of constant phase emitted
>> from the charged photon in this way intersect the helical axis of the
>> charged photon. When a charged photon has traveled one relativistic
>> wavelength lambda = h/(gamma mc) along the helical axis, the intersection
>> point of this wave front with the helical axis has traveled (as seen from
>> the geometry of Figure 2 in my charged photon article) a distance
>> lambda/cos(theta) =  lambda / (v/c) = h/(gamma mv)  i.e the relativistic de
>> Broglie wavelength along the helical axis.
>>
>> Here I have a question with respect to your Figure 2. The circling
>> charged photon is accompanied by a wave which moves at any moment in the
>> direction of the photon on its helical path. This wave has its normal
>> wavelength in the direction along this helical path. But if now this wave
>> is projected onto the axis of the helix, which is the axis of the moving
>> electron, then the projected wave will be shorter than the original one. So
>> the equation will not be  lambdadeBroglie = lambdaphoton / cos theta ,
>> but: lambdadeBroglie = lambdaphoton * cos theta . The result will not be
>> the (extended) de Broglie wave but a shortened wave. Or do I completely
>> misunderstand the situation here?
>>
>> Or let's use another view to the process. Lets imagine a scattering
>> process of the electron at a double slit. This was the experiment where the
>> de Broglie wavelength turned out to be helpful.
>> So, when now the electron, and that means the cycling photon, approaches
>> the slits, it will approach at a slant angle theta at the layer which has
>> the slits. Now assume the momentary phase such that the wave front reaches
>> two slits at the same time (which means that the photon at this moment
>> moves downwards or upwards, but else straight with respect to the azimuth).
>> This situation is similar to the front wave of a *single* normal photon
>> which moves upwards or downwards by an angle theta. There is now no phase
>> difference between the right and the left slit. Now the question is whether
>> this coming-down (or -up) will change the temporal sequence of the phases
>> (say: of the maxima of the wave). This distance (by time or by length)
>> determines at which angle the next interference maxima to the right or to
>> the left will occur behind the slits.
>>
>> To my understanding the temporal distance will be the same distance as of
>> wave maxima on the helical path of the photon, where the latter is  lambda
>> 1 = c / frequency; frequency = (gamma*mc2) / h. So, the geometric
>> distance of the wave maxima passing the slits is   lambda1 = c*h /
>> (gamma*mc2). Also here the result is a shortened wavelength rather than
>> an extended one, so not the de Broglie wavelength.
>>
>> Again my question: What do I misunderstand?
>>
>> For the other topics of your answer I essentially agree, so I shall stop
>> here.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Albrecht
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>      Now as seen from this geometry, the slower the electron’s velocity
>> v, the longer is the electron’s de Broglie wavelength — also as seen from
>> the relativistic de Broglie wavelength formula Ldb =  h/(gamma mv). For a
>> resting electron (v=0) the de Broglie wavelength is undefined in this
>> formula as also in my model for v = 0. Here, for stationary electron, the
>> charged photon’s emitted wave fronts (for waves of wavelength equal to the
>> Compton wavelength h/mc)  intersect the axis of the circulating photon
>> along its whole length rather than at a single point along the helical
>> axis. This condition corresponds to the condition where de Broglie said
>> (something like) that the electron oscillates with the frequency given by f
>> = mc^2/h for the stationary electron, and that the phase of the wave of
>> this oscillating electron is the same at all points in space. But when the
>> electron is moving slowly, long de Broglie waves are formed along the axis
>> of the moving electron.
>>
>>
>>      In this basic plane wave model there is no limitation on how far to
>> the sides of the charged photon the plane wave fronts extend. In a more
>> detailed model a finite side-spreading of the plane wave would correspond
>> to a pulse of many forward moving electrons that is limited in both
>> longitudinal and lateral extent (here a Fourier description of the wave
>> front for a pulse of electrons of a particular spatial extent would
>> probably come into play), which is beyond the present description.
>>
>>
>>      You asked what an observer standing beside the resting electron, but
>> not in the plane of the charged photon's internal circular motion) would
>> observe as the circulating charged photon emits a plane wave long its
>> trajectory. The plane wave’s wavelength emitted by the circling charged
>> photon would be the Compton wavelength h/mc. So when the charged photon is
>> moving more towards (but an an angle to) the stationary observer, he would
>> observe a wave of wavelength h/mc (which you call c/ny where ny is the
>> frequency of charged photon’s orbital motion) coming towards and past him.
>> This is not the de Broglie wavelength (which is undefined here and is only
>> defined on the helical axis of the circulating photon for a moving
>> electron) but is the Compton wavelength h/mc of the circulating photon of a
>> resting electron. As the charged photon moves more away from the observer,
>> he would observe a plane wave of wavelength h/mc moving away from him in
>> the direction of the receding charged photon. But it is more complicated
>> than this, because the observer at the side of the stationary electron
>> (circulating charged photon) will also be receiving all the other plane
>> waves with different phases emitted at other angles from the circulating
>> charged photon during its whole circular trajectory. In fact all of these
>> waves from the charged photon away from the circular axis or helical axis
>> will interfere and may actually cancel out or partially cancel out (I don’t
>> know), leaving a net result only along the axis of the electron, which if
>> the electron is moving, corresponds to the de Broglie wavelength along this
>> axis. This is hard to visualize in 3-D and this is why I think a 3-D
>> computer graphic model of this plane-wave emitting process for a moving or
>> stationary electron would be very helpful and informative.
>>
>>
>>     You asked about the electric charge of the charged photon and how it
>> affects this process. Clearly the plane waves emitted by the circulating
>> charged photon have to be different from the plane waves emitted by an
>> uncharged photon, because these plane waves generate the quantum wave
>> functions PHI that predict the probabilities of finding electrons or
>> photons respectively in the future from their PHI*PHI functions. Plus the
>> charged photon has to be emitting an additional electric field (not emitted
>> by a regular uncharged photon), for example caused by virtual uncharged
>> photons as described in QED, that produces the electrostatic field of a
>> stationary electron or the electro-magnetic field around a moving electron.
>>
>>
>>     I hope this helps. Thanks again for your excellent questions.
>>
>>
>>       with best regards,
>>
>>            Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2015, at 8:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Richard:
>>
>> I am still busy to understand the de Broglie wavelength from your model.
>> I think that I understand your general idea, but I would like to also
>> understand the details.
>>
>> If a photon moves straight in the free space, how does the wave look
>> like? You say that the photon emits a plane wave. If the photon is alone
>> and moves straight, then the wave goes with the photon. No problem. And the
>> wave front is in the forward direction. Correct? How far to the sides is
>> the wave extended? That may be important in case of the photon in the
>> electron.
>>
>> With the following I refer to the figures 1 and 2 in your paper referred
>> in your preceding mail.
>>
>> In the electron, the photon moves according to your model on a circuit.
>> It moves on a helix when the electron is in motion. But let take us first
>> the case of the electron at rest, so that the photon moves on this circuit.
>> In any moment the plane wave accompanied with the photon will momentarily
>> move in the tangential direction of the circuit. But the direction will
>> permanently change to follow the path of the photon on the circuit. What is
>> then about the motion of the wave? The front of the wave should follow this
>> circuit. Would an observer next to the electron at rest (but not in the
>> plane of the internal motion) notice the wave? This can only happen, I
>> think, if the wave does not only propagate on a straight path forward but
>> has an extension to the sides. Only if this is the case, there will be a
>> wave along the axis of the electron. Now an observer next to the electron
>> will see a modulated wave coming from the photon, which will be modulated
>> with the frequency of the rotation, because the photon will in one moment
>> be closer to the observer and in the next moment be farer from him. Which
>> wavelength will be noticed by the observer? It should be lambda = c / ny,
>> where c is the speed of the propagation and ny the frequency of the orbital
>> motion. But this lambda is by my understanding not be the de Broglie wave
>> length.
>>
>> For an electron at rest your model expects a wave with a momentarily
>> similar phase for all points in space. How can this orbiting photon cause
>> this? And else, if the electron is not at rest but moves at a very small
>> speed, then the situation will not be very different from that of the
>> electron at rest.
>>
>> Further: What is the influence of the charge in the photon? There should
>> be a modulated electric field around the electron with a frequency ny which
>> follows also from E = h*ny, with E the dynamical energy of the photon. Does
>> this modulated field have any influence to how the electron interacts with
>> others?
>>
>> Some questions, perhaps you can help me for a better understanding.
>>
>> With best regards and thanks in advance
>> Albrecht
>>
>> PS: I shall answer you mail from last night tomorrow.
>>
>> Am 14.10.2015 um 22:32 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>
>> Hello Albrecht,
>>
>>
>>     I second David’s question. The last I heard authoritatively, from
>> cosmologist Sean Carroll - "The Particle at the End of the Universe”
>> (2012), is that fermions are not affected by the strong nuclear force. If
>> they were, I think it would be common scientific knowledge by now.
>>
>>
>> You wrote: "I see it as a valuable goal for the further development to
>> find an answer (a *physical *answer!) to the question of the de Broglie
>> wavelength."
>>
>>   My spin 1/2 charged photon model DOES give a simple physical
>> explanation for the origin of the de Broglie wavelength. The
>> helically-circulating charged photon is proposed to emit a plane wave
>> directed along its helical path based on its relativistic wavelength lambda
>> = h/(gamma mc) and relativistic frequency f=(gamma mc^2)/h. The wave fronts
>> of this plane wave intersect the axis of the charged photon’s helical
>> trajectory, which is the path of the electron being modeled by the charged
>> photon, creating a de Broglie wave pattern of wavelength h/(gamma mv) which
>> travels along the charged photon’s helical axis at speed c^2/v. For a
>> moving electron, the wave fronts emitted by the charged photon do not
>> intersect the helical axis perpendicularly but at an angle (see Figure 2 of
>> my SPIE paper at
>> https://www.academia.edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength )
>> that is simply related to the speed of the electron being modeled.  This
>> physical origin of the electron’s de Broglie wave is similar to when a
>> series of parallel and evenly-spaced ocean waves hits a straight beach at
>> an angle greater than zero degrees to the beach — a wave pattern is
>> produced at the beach that travels in one direction along the beach at a
>> speed faster than the speed of the waves coming in from the ocean. But that
>> beach wave pattern can't transmit “information” along the beach faster than
>> the speed of the ocean waves, just as the de Broglie matter-wave can’t
>> (according to special relativity) transmit information faster than light,
>> as de Broglie recognized.  As far as I know this geometric interpretation
>> for the generation of the relativistic electron's de Broglie wavelength,
>> phase velocity, and matter-wave equation is unique.
>>
>>
>>   For a resting (v=0) electron, the de Broglie wavelength lambda =
>> h/(gamma mv) is not defined since one can’t divide by zero. It corresponds
>> to the ocean wave fronts in the above example hitting the beach at a zero
>> degree angle, where no velocity of the wave pattern along the beach can be
>> defined.
>>
>>
>>   Schrödinger took de Broglie’s matter-wave and used  it
>> non-relativistically with a potential V  to generate the Schrödinger equation
>> and wave mechanics, which is mathematically identical in its predictions to
>> Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics. Born interpreted Psi*Psi of the
>> Schrödinger equation as the probability density for the result of an
>> experimental measurement and this worked well for statistical predictions.
>> Quantum mechanics was built on this de Broglie wave foundation and Born's
>> probabilistic interpretation (using Hilbert space math.)
>>
>>
>>   The charged photon model of the electron might be used to derive the
>> Schrödinger equation, considering the electron to be a circulating
>> charged photon that generates the electron’s matter-wave, which depends on
>> the electron’s variable kinetic energy in a potential field. This needs to
>> be explored further, which I began in
>> https://www.academia.edu/10235164/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_Fits_the_Schrödinger_Equation .
>> Of course, to treat the electron relativistically requires the Dirac
>> equation. But the spin 1/2 charged photon model of the relativistic
>> electron has a number of features of the Dirac electron, by design.
>>
>>
>>   As to why the charged photon circulates helically rather than moving in
>> a straight line (in the absence of diffraction, etc) like an uncharged
>> photon, this could be the effect of the charged photon moving in the Higgs
>> field, which turns a speed-of-light particle with electric charge into a
>> less-than-speed-of-light particle with a rest mass, which in this case is
>> the electron’s rest mass 0.511 MeV/c^2 (this value is not predicted by the
>> Higgs field theory however.) So the electron’s inertia may also be caused
>> by the Higgs field. I would not say that an unconfined photon has inertia,
>> although it has energy and momentum but no rest mass, but opinions differ
>> on this point. “Inertia” is a vague term and perhaps should be dropped— it
>> literally means "inactive, unskilled”.
>>
>>
>>   You said that a faster-than-light phase wave can only be caused by a
>> superposition of waves. I’m not sure this is correct, since in my charged
>> photon model a single plane wave pattern emitted by the circulating charged
>> photon generates the electron’s faster-than-light phase wave of speed c^2/v
>> . A group velocity of an electron model may be generated by a superposition
>> of waves to produce a wave packet whose group velocity equals the
>> slower-than-light speed of an electron modeled by such an wave-packet
>> approach.
>>
>>
>> with best regards,
>>
>>        Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
>> and Particles General Discussion List at martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
>> <a href="
>> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
>> ">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally
>> protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the
>> addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
>> notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this
>> message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the
>> intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy
>> all copies of the original message.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
>> and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
>> <a href="
>> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
>> ">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
>> and Particles General Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com
>> <a href="
>> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
>> ">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
>> and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
>> <a href="
>> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
>> ">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
>> and Particles General Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com
>> <a href="
>> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
>> ">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ 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-natureoflightandparticles.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-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.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 af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe
>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.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 af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe
>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.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 afokay at gmail.com
>> <a href="
>> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
>> ">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151025/383d1871/attachment.htm>