[General] research papers
Dr. Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Tue Oct 27 07:39:16 PDT 2015
Hello Richard (and all),
thank you, Richard, for your informations. You find my answers and
comments in your text.
However I see here two general problems which should be reviewed by all.
1.) The fact that the de Broglie wave regarding its definition and its
use is /not /Lorentz-invariant. So it is incompatible with our physical
understanding since 1905.
2.) If the photon is seen as the ingredient of the electron, we need a
much clearer definition and understanding what the photon is and what
its effects are in detail (like the wave front emitted). Otherwise there
are too many insufficiently defined situations as visible in the
discussion further down. - And clearly we do not get any help from
quantum mechanics for this, after Heisenberg has stated that it is
completely useless to look into an elementary particle, and the physical
community has accepted this since that time.
Am 26.10.2015 um 00:29 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
> Hello Albrecht (and all),
>
> Thanks for your further questions. First of all, I think your
> comments on the de Broglie wavelength and the double-slit experiment
> as observed by a moving observer (moving with the electron or with
> another speed), were quite astute. I can’t see how an apparently
> stationary group of electrons, with an undefined or near infinite de
> Broglie wavelength, approached with speed v by a double slit
> apparatus, will form a wavy statistical interference pattern of points
> on the approaching screen on the other side of the approaching double
> slit apparatus, equal to the wavy statistical interference pattern
> produced by electrons moving at speed v approaching a stationary
> double-slit apparatus and screen. But apparently the pattern will be
> the same since this transverse wavy pattern should be invariant with
> respect to the longitudinal motion of the observer with respect to the
> double slit experiment (electrons plus double-slit and screen
> apparatus). Perhaps someone else can explain how this would work. The
> double slit pattern formed by PHOTONS of a particular wavelength with
> respect to the double-slit apparatus should not be affected in a
> similar way by the motion of the observer. The same wavy transverse
> statistical pattern of photon spots on the screen behind the double
> slits should also occur independent of the velocity of the observer
> with respect to the photons and double-slit apparatus plus screen. Of
> course, in this case the observer can’t move as fast as the
> approaching photons, which makes a difference between the photon and
> the electron double-slit experiments, in relation to a moving observer.
True, for a photon coming in straight, there is no conflict. But I have
mentioned earlier another view. Look what the circling photon does when
the electron approaches the double slit. The photon performs a
scattering at the double slit. The difference to the photon coming
straight is that the photon approaches the double slit at a - maybe -
very flat angle. This will change the angle at which the light beam
leaves the double slit at the other side. So the diffraction pattern on
the screen will not be on a straight line perpendicular to the direction
of the slits. It will be positioned more or less on a circuit. But the
structure of the pattern, i.e. the spread of the maxima, will be
according to photon scattering and not to electron scattering. The
deflections will be different from the ones of a photon moving straight
in by a factor, which is between 1 and c/v depending on the direction
(up/down or right/left). And so different from the de Broglie assumption
which deviates by a factor of (c^2/v^2) from the angular deflection of a
photon coming in straight.
> However, the problem with the ELECTRON double-slit experiment with a
> moving observer might be resolved by thinking of the stationary
> electrons (as seen by an observer moving with them) as composed of
> circulating charged photons, with each electron producing a standing
> wave composed of Compton waves moving in opposite directions,
> approached by a moving double-slit apparatus.
Let's look at a collection of electrons having an opposite rotation and
so the waves move to different directions. If now an observer moves at a
moderate speed towards the double slit (so not co-moving at the same
speed as the electron) he should now see a diffraction pattern which is
smeared out as both wave contribute in a different way. But again this
will be different of what an observer at rest will see.
>
> Now to answer your further questions about the charged photon model
> and the proposed quantum wave function describing quantum plane waves
> emitted by the helically circulating charged photon.
>
>> The relation k = (gamma mv)/hbar cannot be applicable here, if I
>> understand correctly that v is the speed of the electron. If the
>> electron is at rest, then v=0 and so
>> k=0. But for a photon k=0 is not possible. It is in permanent motion
>> and has energy, which you describe with w = (gamma mc^2)/hbar .
>
> For the v=0 or near zero resting electron, where gamma=1, the k wave
> number relations k(electron) =(gamma mv)/hbar for the resting
> electron’s de Broglie wave and k(photon)=(gamma mc)/hbar for the
> circulating photon BOTH apply. For the resting electron, v=0 so k=0
> since k(electron) =2pi/LAMBDAdb and LAMBDAdb goes to infinity for a
> resting electron since LAMBDAdb = h/mv and v -> 0. But for the
> circulating charged photon in a resting electron where gamma = 1,
> k(photon) = (gamma mc)/hbar -> mc/hbar applies also because here for
> the circulating photon, k(photon)= 2pi/LAMBDAphoton =
> 2pi/ComptonWavelength = 2pi/(h/mc) = mc/hbar . So there is no
> contradiction here or for any other electron speed, which is always
> less than c even though the circulating charged photon’s speed is
> always c .
For the photon I do not see any problem here. But further down in the
sequence of your arguments, you explain the de Broglie wavelength by the
intercept of the wave front of the photon with the axis. At this early
point of your sequence there is nothing about this intercept. So, if you
use the de Broglie wavelength of the electron /here /as an argument,
then you use here something which you deduce only later. This is what I
meant as circular reasoning.
>
>> 1.) Your intention is to derive the de Broglie wave length. But you
>> cannot do this by using the validity of the de Broglie wave length as
>> a precondition. That would be circular reasoning.
>
> I am not deriving the de Broglie wavelength by circular reasoning.
> Although we already know the electron’s de Broglie wavelength formula
> experimentally, the electron’s de Broglie wavelength formula is
> derived in my model from the circulating charged photon’s wavelength
> LAMBDA(photon) = h/(gamma mc) along its helical trajectory. This
> photon wavelength Lambda(photon) along the helical trajectory is
> simply derived from the proposed charged photon’s energy E= hf = gamma
> mc^2 for the relativistic moving electron. The z=component of the
> helically circulating charged photon’s wave vector k(photon) value
> along the helical axis is k(axis) = k(photon ) x cos(theta) which
> corresponds to the de Broglie wavelength h/(gamma mv) .
Correct, but earlier you use the de Broglie wavelength before you derive
it. Not true?
>
>> 2.) And anyway, for a photon the de Broglie wave length is identical
>> the wave length of the phase wave as v=c .
>
> No, the wavelength h/(gamma mc) of the circulating charged photon is
> not identical to the de Broglie wavelength h/(gamma mv) of the phase
> wave. The speed of the circulating charged photon is c, while the
> speed of the moving electron is v (less than c) and the phase
> velocity of the de Broglie wave is c^2/v (always greater than c)
I understand your arguments so that you first present the charged photon
with its properties. Its role in the set up of the electron comes later
and the de Broglie wavelength is derived later. So at this point, where
the photon is the subject, we can state that the de Broglie wave of the
/photon /is identical with the normal phase wave of the /photon /which
is formally given by the relation v=c, don't we?
>
>> Your Figures 2 and 4 assume that the circling photon emits a plane
>> wave. Is that possible? It means that the wave which just leaves the
>> photon with a certain phase is immediately spread out to all sides
>> until infinity. Otherwise it is not a /plane /wave. But if it does
>> so, it means an infinite propagation speed to all directions
>> perpendicular to the speed vector of the photon. This is in my
>> understanding in strong conflict with relativity. (And it means also
>> that for an observer in a system moving relative to this system there
>> can be a violation of causality. He can observe that a part of the
>> plane may exist at a certain phase even before this phase is emitted
>> from the photon.)
>>
>> If you assume such kind of plane wave then your considerations about
>> the wave on the axis caused by the sequence of intercept points are
>> applicable. But again: a plane wave of this kind violates causality.
>
> Mathematical plane waves e^i(k dot r-wt) are generally used in
> practical physics beam experiments all the time to model for example a
> beam of photons in a laser, a beam of electrons in an electron
> scattering experiment, or a beam of other particles in a high energy
> particle collider experiment. Plane wave math is a good approximation
> when the particles are all of the same momentum, moving in same
> direction (past some stationary point in the beam) and are basically
> independent of each other in the beam. This is standard practice for
> calculating scattering probability amplitudes in quantum theory. And
> also in practice the plane waves in a particle beam are probably not
> assumed to extend beyond the beam, where there are anyway (by
> definition) no beam particles to scatter. So no infinite propagation
> speeds for producing plane waves are assumed in these practical
> applications of mathematical plane waves. The same would be true in
> charged-photon modeling in electron beam experiments.
You are right that a light beam is understood as having a plane front
perpendicular to the motion of the photons. And correctly you mention
that such beam is in experiments built by a huge number of photons. By
the superposition of the single fields it is very plausible to assume
this plane front. But careful: if we reduce the problem to a
mathematical one then we do what the Copenhagen QM does all day. And I
think that no one in our community wants this way.
But questions:
What is about a single photon? At radar systems I have worked with it
can be measured that in case of a beam, which is kind of collimated by
an aperture, if one goes away from that beam by more than a wavelength,
there is nothing any more (except small contributions caused by
bending). What is about the circling photon? What size can be assumed
for the photon in the electron? You refer to the uncertainty principle.
If this causes the photon to be smeared out by an amount which is
roughly related to the size of the orbit (so the size of the electron),
how well defined is the intercept point where this wave crosses the axis?
I have the impression that we are here on the border between QM (you
mention Heisenberg) and a classical understanding of this process. If we
follow quantum mechanics then the electron is a structureless point
which is surrounded by a cloud of virtual charges. This is present
understanding of main stream. But I have the impression that nobody of
us in this round wants to understand particle physics in this way.
So, let's stay with the classical understanding. Now the question is,
what does the wave front if the direction of the photon changes? This
does normally not happen in experiments, so we don't know it from
practice. And if the photon continues with speed c, then the outer
regions of the front have to move with superluminal speed. Is this
accepted? If in the radar case the beam is redirected by a wave guide
then the speed is reduced below c, technically reasoned by the impedance
of the wave guide.
> The position of a single circulating charged photon (i.e. electron
> with a fixed momentum gamma mv) could not be located at all along its
> helical length, according to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. But
> a long pulse of many electrons in a beam of finite width could still
> be modeled by circulating charged photons emanating quantum plane
> waves at an angle theta to the electron beam, where cos(theta)=v/c,
> and whose projected quantum wave function along the z=axis (beam
> axis) for each electron is the electron's quantum plane wave function
> with the de Broglie wavelength. The superluminal phase velocity c^2/v
> comes in when the wave vector k of these charged-photon quantum plane
> waves at angle theta to the beam, intersects the beam direction,
> generating de Broglie waves along the beam direction for each
> electron, moving with phase velocity c^2/v. These phase waves (also as
> de Broglie described them) are not physical waves moving
> superluminally (which would violate relativity). Rather they are (for
> charged photons) like the wave-like motion along a beach when
> successive parallel waves hit a beach at an angle, causing a
> disturbance that travels up the beach at a speed faster than the speed
> of the waves themselves. It is these de Broglie phase waves which
> predict the scattering of the electrons during a collision or
> scattering process.
>
>> You mention further down as a visualization the case of a laser
>> moving along the helix. A laser emits indeed a sort of a plane wave,
>> however in a limited region given by the diameter of the laser's
>> body. This plane wave is the result of a superposition of a huge
>> number of photons oscillating forth and back in the laser. In
>> contrast to this the photon in your model is a point source. If it
>> emits waves then those are restricted to the speed of light. So they
>> will leave the photon as a cone with a half angle of 45 degrees. (In
>> acoustics this is called Mach's cone.) If we start now to follow this
>> process using this way of propagation, we have to look how the cone
>> touches the axis. The motion of these intercept points on the axis
>> seems to be non-linear, and as further phases follow, there will be
>> an overlay of such phases. - Do you think it is worth to follow this?
>> I would like to first check whether we find an agreement at this point.
>
> See above about the limited-width electron beam as corresponding to a
> limited width laser beam.The charged photon's quantum plane wave cone
> half-angle would be 45 degrees only if v = c/sqrt(2) and so cos
> (theta) = 1/sqrt(2) = 0.707 so that theta = 45 degrees). The angle
> theta (your half-angle) in the charged photon model can vary between
> near 90 degrees (very slow electrons) and near 0 degrees (for highly
> relativistic electrons).
This is misunderstanding. At this point I do not mean the angle built by
the relation of v and c, but the cone in which the wave front leaves the
photon if we have a classical understanding.
> In the laser (as I understand it) the many coherent photons can also
> be considered as point sources each generating plane waves (because
> the laser intensity can be drastically reduced or filtered to one
> photon at a time without changing photon scattering results). The
> charged photon plane waves will be emitted from the circulating
> charged photon in a cone whose circulating k wave vector makes a half
> angle of theta . This cone-sweep at 1/2 angle theta and the
> intersection of these corresponding emitted light-speed plane waves
> with the longitudinal z-axis will generate waves moving superluminally
> along the z=axis which will be the de Broglie waves. I think it would
> be great to have a 3D animation of this, for different values of v
> (and therefore different values of theta).
I do not believe that a laser beam can be reduced so far that only one
photon is moving inside. This photon has to stimulate the next radiation
of an atom in the gas, and this is a process of low probability in the
single case. So I expect that a laser which is too much reduced will
stop its radiation. And the coherence of the radiation is anyway only
possible if there is a sufficient density of photons. If the laser beam
is filtered on the other hand so that only single photons are in the
beam, these photons are also assumed to build an interference pattern at
a double slit. My understanding to explain this is that a photon is
extended in a similar way as the electron is extended. Then the tip of
the cone which I mentioned would not be a sharp peak but a bit flat, and
that could be sufficient to explain the scattering observed as a bit
like a plane.
But as I said before: we need a much better understanding of how the
photon is built in order to use it in your model. At present I have even
the impression that the photon which we need for this model is more
complex than the electron which it is supposed to explain.
Best regards
Albrecht
>
>> I understand that these considerations follow again the assumption of
>> a "plane" wave which I do not believe to be possible as explained
>> above. So I shall wait for your response to that.
>
> See the plane-wave reply above for real beams.
>
> with best regards,
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:21 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de
>> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Richard,
>>
>> thanks for your detailed explanation. I think that it becomes more
>> and more visible, how difficult it is to visualize such a
>> 3-dimensional process.
>>
>> I have added some further comments below in your text.
>>
>> Am 23.10.2015 um 22:41 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>> Hello Albrecht (and others)
>>>
>>> Thank for your further comments. You arguments are correct,
>>> according to how I previously explained the plane waves emitted by
>>> the charged photon along its helical axis. I realized that I
>>> misinterpreted and therefore poorly explained my own proposed
>>> quantum plane wave function describing quantum waves coming from the
>>> circulating charged photon. The left side of Figure 2 is NOT merely
>>> the mathematically unwrapped helical trajectory of the charged
>>> photon. It is instead (or in addition) one of many “rays” of quantum
>>> plane waves emitted continuously from the circulating charged photon.
>>>
>>> The circulating charged photon’s proposed quantum plane wave
>>> function Ae^i(k dot r - wt) , where k = (gamma mv)/hbar and w =
>>> (gamma mc^2)/hbar are the wave vector and the angular frequency of
>>> the circulating charged photon, describes quantum plane waves
>>> emitted from the circulating charged photon in the direction that
>>> the charged photon is moving at any point in time.
>> The relation k = (gamma mv)/hbar cannot be applicable here, if I
>> understand correctly that v is the speed of the electron. If the
>> electron is at rest, then v=0 and so
>> k=0. But for a photon k=0 is not possible. It is in permanent motion
>> and has energy, which you describe with w = (gamma mc^2)/hbar .
>
>> 1.) Your intention is to derive the de Broglie wave length. But you
>> cannot do this by using the validity of the de Broglie wave length as
>> a precondition. That would be circular reasoning.
>>
>> Here you try to apply the de Broglie wave length to the circling
>> photon which you cannot do by two reasons:
>> 1.) Your intention is to derive the de Broglie wave length. But you
>> cannot do this by using the validity of the de Broglie wave length as
>> a precondition. That would be circular reasoning.
>> 2.) And anyway, for a photon the de Broglie wave length is identical
>> the wave length of the phase wave as v=c .
>>> While emitting these quantum plane waves, the charged photon curves
>>> away on its helical trajectory, continuing to emit newer quantum
>>> plane waves at its own frequency and wavelength. But the quantum
>>> plane waves previously emitted by the charged photon continue in a
>>> straight line direction tangent to the helical trajectory at the
>>> point along the trajectory where they were emitted. Those quantum
>>> plane waves emitted from the circulating charged photon at one
>>> location move out into space at light-speed away from the charged
>>> photon, as indicated by the left side of the big triangle in my
>>> Figure 2, and in the recently posted figure showing 4 wave fronts.
>>> Their quantum plane wave fronts DO intersect the charged photon’s
>>> helical axis further along the axis to the right, as shown in the
>>> two figures, creating de Broglie wavelengths along the helical axis.
>>> And these de Broglie wavelengths DO travel away to the right along
>>> the helical axis at the phase velocity c^2/v because their speed is
>>> (from the geometry shown in Figure 2) Vphase = speed of charged
>>> photon / cos(theta) = c/cos(theta) = c/(v/c) = c^2/v .
>> Your Figures 2 and 4 assume that the circling photon emits a plane
>> wave. Is that possible? It means that the wave which just leaves the
>> photon with a certain phase is immediately spread out to all sides
>> until infinity. Otherwise it is not a/plane/wave. But if it does so,
>> it means an infinite propagation speed to all directions
>> perpendicular to the speed vector of the photon. This is in my
>> understanding in strong conflict with relativity. (And it means also
>> that for an observer in a system moving relative to this system there
>> can be a violation of causality. He can observe that a part of the
>> plane may exist at a certain phase even before this phase is emitted
>> from the photon.)
>>
>> If you assume such kind of plane wave then your considerations about
>> the wave on the axis caused by the sequence of intercept points are
>> applicable. But again: a plane wave of this kind violates causality.
>>
>> You mention further down as a visualization the case of a laser
>> moving along the helix. A laser emits indeed a sort of a plane wave,
>> however in a limited region given by the diameter of the laser's
>> body. This plane wave is the result of a superposition of a huge
>> number of photons oscillating forth and back in the laser. In
>> contrast to this the photon in your model is a point source. If it
>> emits waves then those are restricted to the speed of light. So they
>> will leave the photon as a cone with a half angle of 45 degrees. (In
>> acoustics this is called Mach's cone.) If we start now to follow this
>> process using this way of propagation, we have to look how the cone
>> touches the axis. The motion of these intercept points on the axis
>> seems to be non-linear, and as further phases follow, there will be
>> an overlay of such phases. - Do you think it is worth to follow this?
>> I would like to first check whether we find an agreement at this point.
>>>
>>> All these emitted quantum plane waves from the charged photon,
>>> described above by Ae^i(k dot r - wt) , intersect the helical axis,
>>> as described by the derived relativistic de Broglie matter-wave
>>> function A^i(Kdb z -wt) where Kdb is the wave number corresponding
>>> to the de Broglie wavelength Ldb = h/(gamma mv). So Kdb =2pi /Ldb =
>>> (gamma mv)/hbar , and w =(gamma mc^2)/hbar the angular frequency of
>>> the charged photon, corresponding to f=(gamma mc^2)/h as before.
>> I understand that these considerations follow again the assumption of
>> a "plane" wave which I do not believe to be possible as explained
>> above. So I shall wait for your response to that.
>>>
>>> This process can roughly be compared to a broad plane-wave beam
>>> emitted from a laser while the laser moves along a helical
>>> trajectory, directing its beam in new directions as the laser moves
>>> along its helical path. The parallel waves fronts from the laser
>>> intersect the axis and generate one de Broglie-like wavelength along
>>> the axis for each photon wavelength coming from the laser.
>> For the laser example please see above.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Albrecht
>>>
>>> Does this new explanation answer your fundamental objection?
>>>
>>> with best regards,
>>> Richard
>>> .
>>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 10:18 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese
>>>> <genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Richard,
>>>>
>>>> thank you and see my comments below.
>>>>
>>>> Am 22.10.2015 um 00:32 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>>> Hello Albert (and all),
>>>>>
>>>>> I think your fundamental objection that you mentioned earlier can
>>>>> be answered below.
>>>>>
>>>>> The left side of the big triangle in Figure 2 in my article is a
>>>>> purely mathematical unfolding of the path of the helical
>>>>> trajectory, to hopefully show more clearly the generation of de
>>>>> Broglie wavelengths from plane waves emitted by the actual charged
>>>>> photon moving along the helical trajectory. Nothing is actually
>>>>> moving off into space along this line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider an electron moving with velocity v horizontally along
>>>>> the helical axis. Since in Figure 2 in my article, cos (theta) =
>>>>> v/c , the corresponding velocity of the charged photon along the
>>>>> helical path is v/ cos(theta) = c , the speed of the charged
>>>>> photon, which we knew already because the helical trajectory was
>>>>> defined so that this is the case. In a short time T, the electron
>>>>> has moved a distance Delectron = vT horizontally and the photon
>>>>> has moved a distance Dphoton = Delectron/cos(theta) =vT/cos(theta)
>>>>> = cT along its helical trajectory.
>>>> I agree.
>>>>> A plane wave front emitted from the photon at the distance Dphoton
>>>>> = cT along the photon’s helical path will intersect the base of
>>>>> the big triangle (the helical axis) at the distance along the base
>>>>> given by Dwavefront = Dphoton / cos(theta) = cT/ (v/c) = T *
>>>>> (c^2)/v which means the intersection point of the plane wave
>>>>> with the helical axis is moving with a speed c^2/v which is the de
>>>>> Broglie wave’s phase velocity.
>>>> Here I disagree. If we assume the wave front as an extended layer
>>>> through the photon and with an orientation perpendicular to the
>>>> actual direction of the photon, then the intersect point of this
>>>> layer with the axis has the same z coordinate as the z-component of
>>>> the photon's position. This is essential. (I have built myself a
>>>> little 3-d model to see this.)
>>>>
>>>> When now, say at time T_0 , a phase maximum of the wave front
>>>> leaves the photon, then the same phase maximum passes the intersect
>>>> point on the axis with the same z coordinate. After a while (i.e.
>>>> after the time T_p =1/frequency) the next phase maximum will exit
>>>> from the photon and simultaneously the next phase maximum will
>>>> cross the axis. The new z-value (of the photon and of the intersect
>>>> point) is now displaced from the old one by the amount delta_z = v
>>>> * T_p . During this time the photon will have moved by c * T_p on
>>>> its helical path.
>>>>
>>>> Now the spacial distance between these two phase maxima, which is
>>>> the wavelength, is: lambda_photon = c * T_p , and lambda_electron =
>>>> v * T_p .
>>>>
>>>> This is my result. Or what (which detail) is wrong?
>>>>
>>>> best wishes
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The length of the de Broglie wave itself as shown previously from
>>>>> Figure 2 is Ldb = Lambda-photon / cos(theta) = h/(gamma mc) /
>>>>> (v/c) = h/(gamma mv). So as the electron moves with velocity v
>>>>> along the z-axis, de Broglie waves of length h/(gamma mv) produced
>>>>> along the z-axis are moving with velocity c^2/v along the z-axis.
>>>>> The de Broglie waves created by the circulating charged photon
>>>>> will speed away from the electron (but more will be produced) to
>>>>> take their place, one de Broglie wave during each period of the
>>>>> circulating charged photon (corresponding to the moving electron).
>>>>> As mentioned previously, the period of the circulating charged
>>>>> photon is 1/f = 1/(gamma mc^2/h) = h/(gamma mc^2/). As the
>>>>> electron speeds up (v and gamma increase) the de Broglie
>>>>> wavelengths h/(gamma mv) are shorter and move more slowly,
>>>>> following the speed formula c^2/v .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unpublished graphic showing the generation of de Broglie waves
>>>>> from a moving charged photon along its helical trajectory. The
>>>>> corresponding moving electron is the red dot moving to the right
>>>>> on the red line. The charged photon is the blue dot moving at
>>>>> light speed along the helix.The blue dot has moves a distance of
>>>>> one charged photon wavelength h/(gamma mc) along the helix from
>>>>> the left corner of the diagram On the left diagonal line
>>>>> (representing the mathematically unrolled helix), the blue dots
>>>>> correspond to separations of 1 charged photon h/(gamma mc)
>>>>> wavelength along the helical axis. In this graphic, v/c = 0.5 so
>>>>> cos(theta)= 0.5 and theta= 60 degrees. The group velocity is c^2/v
>>>>> = c^2/0.5c = 2 c, the speed of the de Broglie waves along the
>>>>> horizontal axis . The distances between the intersection points on
>>>>> the horizontal line each correspond to 1 de Broglie wavelength,
>>>>> which in this example where v=0.5 c is h(gamma mv) = 2 x charged
>>>>> photon wavelength h/(gamma mc).
>>>>>
>>>>> It is true that when the electron is at rest, the wave fronts
>>>>> emitted by the circulating charged photon all pass through the
>>>>> center of the circular path of the charged photon and do not
>>>>> intersect any helical axis, because no helical axis is defined for
>>>>> a resting electron, i.e. the pitch of the helix of the circulating
>>>>> charged photon is zero. For a very slowly moving electron, the
>>>>> pitch of the helix of the circulating charged photon is very small
>>>>> but non-zero, but the de Broglie wavelength is very large, much
>>>>> larger than the helical pitch. Perhaps you are confusing these two
>>>>> lengths — the helical pitch of the circulating charged photon and
>>>>> the de Broglie wavelength generated by the wave fronts emitted by
>>>>> the circulating charged photon. The pitch of the helix starts at
>>>>> zero (for v=0 of the electron) and reaches a maximum when the
>>>>> speed of the electron is c/sqrt(2) and theta = 45 degrees (see my
>>>>> charged photon paper) and then the helical pitch decreases towards
>>>>> zero as the speed of the electron further increases towards the
>>>>> speed of light. But the de Broglie wavelength Ldb starts very
>>>>> large (when the electron is moving very slowly) and decreases
>>>>> uniformly towards zero as the speed of the electron increases, as
>>>>> given by Ldb = h/gamma mv. It is the de Broglie wavelength
>>>>> generated by the charged photon that has predictive physical
>>>>> significance in diffraction and double-slit experiments while the
>>>>> helical pitch of the charged photon’s helical trajectory has no
>>>>> current predictive physical significance (though if experimental
>>>>> predictions based on the helical pitch could be made, this could
>>>>> be a test of the charged photon model).
>>>>>
>>>>> I don’t have any comments yet on your concerns about the de
>>>>> Broglie wavelength that you just expressed to John W (below).
>>>>>
>>>>> all the best,
>>>>> Richard
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:42 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese
>>>>>> <genmail at a-giese.de <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear John W and all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> about the_de Broglie wave_:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are a lot of elegant derivations for the de Broglie wave
>>>>>> length, that is true. Mathematical deductions. What is about the
>>>>>> physics behind it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> De Broglie derived this wave in his first paper in the intention
>>>>>> to explain, why the internal frequency in a moving electron is
>>>>>> dilated, but this frequency on the other hand has to be increased
>>>>>> for an external observer to reflect the increase of energy. To
>>>>>> get a result, he invented a "fictitious wave" which has the phase
>>>>>> speed c/v, where v is the speed of the electron. And he takes
>>>>>> care to synchronize this wave with the internal frequency of the
>>>>>> electron. That works and can be used to describe the scattering
>>>>>> of the electron at the double slit. - But is this physical
>>>>>> understanding? De Broglie himself stated that this solution does
>>>>>> not fulfil the expectation in a "complete theory". Are we any
>>>>>> better today?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let us envision the following situation. An electron moves at
>>>>>> moderate speed, say 0.1*c (=> gamma=1.02) . An observer moves
>>>>>> parallel to the electron. What will the observer see or measure?
>>>>>> The internal frequency of the electron will be observed by him as
>>>>>> frequency = m_0 *c^2 /h , because in the observer's system the
>>>>>> electron is at rest. The wave length of the wave leaving the
>>>>>> electron (e.g. in the model of a circling photon) is now not
>>>>>> exactly lambda_1 = c/frequency , but a little bit larger as the
>>>>>> rulers of the observer are a little bit contracted (by gamma =
>>>>>> 1.02), so this is a small effect. What is now about the phase
>>>>>> speed of the de Broglie wave? For an observer at rest it must be
>>>>>> quite large as it is extended by the factor c/v which is 10. For
>>>>>> the co-moving observer it is mathematically infinite (in fact he
>>>>>> will see a constant phase). This is not explained by the time
>>>>>> dilation (=2%), so not compatible. And what about the de Broglie
>>>>>> wave length? For the co-moving observer, who is at rest in
>>>>>> relation to the electron, it is lambda_dB = h/(1*m*0), which is
>>>>>> again infinite or at least extremely large. For the observer at
>>>>>> rest there is lambda_dB = h/(1.02*m*0.1c) . Also not comparable
>>>>>> to the co-moving observer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To summarize: these differences are not explained by the normal
>>>>>> SR effects. So, how to explain these incompatible results?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now let's assume, that the electron closes in to the double slit.
>>>>>> Seen from the co-moving observer, the double slit arrangement
>>>>>> moves towards him and the electron. What are now the parameters
>>>>>> which will determine the scattering? The (infinite) de Broglie
>>>>>> wave length? The phase speed which is 10*c ? Remember: For the
>>>>>> co-moving observer the electron does not move. Only the double
>>>>>> slit moves and the screen behind the double slit will be ca. 2%
>>>>>> closer than in the standard case. But will that be a real change?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not feel that this is a situation which in physically
>>>>>> understood.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 21.10.2015 um 16:34 schrieb John Williamson:
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The de Broglie wavelength is best understood, in my view, in one
>>>>>>> of two ways. Either read de Broglies thesis for his derivation
>>>>>>> (if you do not read french, Al has translated it and it is
>>>>>>> available online). Alternatively derive it yourself. All you
>>>>>>> need to do is consider the interference between a standing wave
>>>>>>> in one (proper frame) as it transforms to other relativistic
>>>>>>> frames. That is standing-wave light-in-a-box. This has been done
>>>>>>> by may folk, many times. Martin did it back in 1991. It is in
>>>>>>> our 1997 paper. One of the nicest illustrations I have seen is
>>>>>>> that of John M - circulated to all of you earlier in this series.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is real, and quite simple.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards, John.
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> *From:*General
>>>>>>> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>>>>>>> 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 lambda_deBroglie =
>>>>>>>>> lambda_photon / cos theta , but: lambda_deBroglie =
>>>>>>>>> lambda_photon * cos theta . The result will not be the
>>>>>>>>> (extended) de Broglie wave but a shortened wave. Or do I
>>>>>>>>> completely misunderstand the situation here?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or let's use another view to the process. Lets imagine a
>>>>>>>>> scattering process of the electron at a double slit. This was
>>>>>>>>> the experiment where the de Broglie wavelength turned out to
>>>>>>>>> be helpful.
>>>>>>>>> So, when now the electron, and that means the cycling photon,
>>>>>>>>> approaches the slits, it will approach at a slant angle theta
>>>>>>>>> at the layer which has the slits. Now assume the momentary
>>>>>>>>> phase such that the wave front reaches two slits at the same
>>>>>>>>> time (which means that the photon at this moment moves
>>>>>>>>> downwards or upwards, but else straight with respect to the
>>>>>>>>> azimuth). This situation is similar to the front wave of
>>>>>>>>> a/single/normal photon which moves upwards or downwards by an
>>>>>>>>> angle theta. There is now no phase difference between the
>>>>>>>>> right and the left slit. Now the question is whether this
>>>>>>>>> coming-down (or -up) will change the temporal sequence of the
>>>>>>>>> phases (say: of the maxima of the wave). This distance (by
>>>>>>>>> time or by length) determines at which angle the next
>>>>>>>>> interference maxima to the right or to the left will occur
>>>>>>>>> behind the slits.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To my understanding the temporal distance will be the same
>>>>>>>>> distance as of wave maxima on the helical path of the photon,
>>>>>>>>> where the latter is lambda_1 = c / frequency; frequency =
>>>>>>>>> (gamma*mc^2 ) / h. So, the geometric distance of the wave
>>>>>>>>> maxima passing the slits is lambda_1 = c*h / (gamma*mc^2 ).
>>>>>>>>> Also here the result is a shortened wavelength rather than an
>>>>>>>>> extended one, so not the de Broglie wavelength.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again my question: What do I misunderstand?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For the other topics of your answer I essentially agree, so I
>>>>>>>>> shall stop here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now as seen from this geometry, the slower the
>>>>>>>>>> electron’s velocity v, the longer is the electron’s de
>>>>>>>>>> Broglie wavelength — also as seen from the relativistic de
>>>>>>>>>> Broglie wavelength formula Ldb = h/(gamma mv). For a resting
>>>>>>>>>> electron (v=0) the de Broglie wavelength is undefined in this
>>>>>>>>>> formula as also in my model for v = 0. Here, for stationary
>>>>>>>>>> electron, the charged photon’s emitted wave fronts (for waves
>>>>>>>>>> of wavelength equal to the Compton wavelength h/mc)
>>>>>>>>>> intersect the axis of the circulating photon along its whole
>>>>>>>>>> length rather than at a single point along the helical axis.
>>>>>>>>>> This condition corresponds to the condition where de Broglie
>>>>>>>>>> said (something like) that the electron oscillates with the
>>>>>>>>>> frequency given by f = mc^2/h for the stationary electron,
>>>>>>>>>> and that the phase of the wave of this oscillating electron
>>>>>>>>>> is the same at all points in space. But when the electron is
>>>>>>>>>> moving slowly, long de Broglie waves are formed along the
>>>>>>>>>> axis of the moving electron.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In this basic plane wave model there is no limitation on
>>>>>>>>>> how far to the sides of the charged photon the plane wave
>>>>>>>>>> fronts extend. In a more detailed model a finite
>>>>>>>>>> side-spreading of the plane wave would correspond to a pulse
>>>>>>>>>> of many forward moving electrons that is limited in both
>>>>>>>>>> longitudinal and lateral extent (here a Fourier description
>>>>>>>>>> of the wave front for a pulse of electrons of a particular
>>>>>>>>>> spatial extent would probably come into play), which is
>>>>>>>>>> beyond the present description.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You asked what an observer standing beside the resting
>>>>>>>>>> electron, but not in the plane of the charged photon's
>>>>>>>>>> internal circular motion) would observe as the circulating
>>>>>>>>>> charged photon emits a plane wave long its trajectory. The
>>>>>>>>>> plane wave’s wavelength emitted by the circling charged
>>>>>>>>>> photon would be the Compton wavelength h/mc. So when the
>>>>>>>>>> charged photon is moving more towards (but an an angle to)
>>>>>>>>>> the stationary observer, he would observe a wave of
>>>>>>>>>> wavelength h/mc (which you call c/ny where ny is the
>>>>>>>>>> frequency of charged photon’s orbital motion) coming towards
>>>>>>>>>> and past him. This is not the de Broglie wavelength (which is
>>>>>>>>>> undefined here and is only defined on the helical axis of the
>>>>>>>>>> circulating photon for a moving electron) but is the Compton
>>>>>>>>>> wavelength h/mc of the circulating photon of a resting
>>>>>>>>>> electron. As the charged photon moves more away from the
>>>>>>>>>> observer, he would observe a plane wave of wavelength h/mc
>>>>>>>>>> moving away from him in the direction of the receding charged
>>>>>>>>>> photon. But it is more complicated than this, because the
>>>>>>>>>> observer at the side of the stationary electron (circulating
>>>>>>>>>> charged photon) will also be receiving all the other plane
>>>>>>>>>> waves with different phases emitted at other angles from the
>>>>>>>>>> circulating charged photon during its whole circular
>>>>>>>>>> trajectory. In fact all of these waves from the charged
>>>>>>>>>> photon away from the circular axis or helical axis will
>>>>>>>>>> interfere and may actually cancel out or partially cancel out
>>>>>>>>>> (I don’t know), leaving a net result only along the axis of
>>>>>>>>>> the electron, which if the electron is moving, corresponds to
>>>>>>>>>> the de Broglie wavelength along this axis. This is hard to
>>>>>>>>>> visualize in 3-D and this is why I think a 3-D computer
>>>>>>>>>> graphic model of this plane-wave emitting process for a
>>>>>>>>>> moving or stationary electron would be very helpful and
>>>>>>>>>> informative.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You asked about the electric charge of the charged photon and
>>>>>>>>>> how it affects this process. Clearly the plane waves emitted
>>>>>>>>>> by the circulating charged photon have to be different from
>>>>>>>>>> the plane waves emitted by an uncharged photon, because these
>>>>>>>>>> plane waves generate the quantum wave functions PHI that
>>>>>>>>>> predict the probabilities of finding electrons or photons
>>>>>>>>>> respectively in the future from their PHI*PHI functions. Plus
>>>>>>>>>> the charged photon has to be emitting an additional electric
>>>>>>>>>> field (not emitted by a regular uncharged photon), for
>>>>>>>>>> example caused by virtual uncharged photons as described in
>>>>>>>>>> QED, that produces the electrostatic field of a stationary
>>>>>>>>>> electron or the electro-magnetic field around a moving electron.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I hope this helps. Thanks again for your excellent questions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> with best regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 19, 2015, at 8:13 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese
>>>>>>>>>>> <genmail at a-giese.de> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>>>>>>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>>>>>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>
>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>>>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151027/3a6a23d3/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list