[General] research papers
Dr. Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Thu Oct 29 04:01:49 PDT 2015
Hello Richard, and hello all,
thank you for this overview about the different interpretations of QM
and particle structure.
It seems that the de Broglie idea of a pilot wave is not very plausible
for you. Why not?
1. If the pilot wave is built by the oscillating internal charges of a
particle, it is plausible that this wave interacts on the one hand with
the other particles met on its way, on the other hand that this field
(which may be changed by this environment) interacts with the
originating particle and do guides the particle. Sounds very simple and
logical to me.
2. You present the different deductions of the de Broglie wavelength.
But none of these deductions help to solve the logical conflicts which
occur with this wavelength.
I also want to remind that none of the models presented have an
explanation for the (inertial) mass of a particle. In contrast to my
model of two constituents which explains the mass based on two
assumptions. 1st: the particle has an extension; 2nd: the speed of light
is finite. And the results of this approach are numerically very precise
for leptons and theoretically also for quarks.
Best regards
Albrecht
Am 28.10.2015 um 21:47 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
> Hello Al and Albrecht and all,
>
> Al’s paper No. 11 is a nice summary of several wave-related
> options for interpreting quantum mechanics:
>
> 1) the Copenhagen complementarity/duality interpretation having
> abstract quantum wave functions that through Psi*Psi predict
> statistically the location, momentum and other observable attributes
> of a particle or particles, and having the de Broglie relationship for
> an electron built into these quantum wave functions to help predict
> statistically the particle's
> diffraction/scattering/interference/double-slit properties,
>
> 2a) de Broglie’s original pilot wave approach that has a physical
> guiding pilot wave closely associated with and guiding a particle, and
> where the electron’s de Broglie matter-waves/phase-waves emanate from
> the kernel oscillator of the electron,
>
> 2b) the later de Broglie/Bohm interpretation of QM which has a
> localized particle closely associated with a non-local quantum
> potential that guides the particle’s motion using distant information
> (such as the location of 2 slits) found in the surroundings, and which
> predicts the same statistical particle properties as the Copenhagen
> description and
>
> 3) the Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED) approach where background
> electromagnetic waves interact with a dipole (or multipolar) particle
> to produce a standing wave that, when in relative motion, generates
> the de Broglie wavelength by dipole-multipole/background-wave
> interactions.
>
> As Al describes, approaches (1) and (2 a & b) are problematical -- in
> (1) because of the well-known measurement problem (how to describe the
> collapse of the quantum wave function for a particle if and when this
> collapse occurs), in (2a) because it is not clear and sometimes
> contradictory quantitatively how the pilot wave can guide the
> particle, and in (2b) because the Bohm quantum potential guiding the
> particle (since it is derived from the Schrodinger equation) has as
> its main motivation the generation of the QM statistical predictions
> of the Schrodinger equation without the measurement problem associated
> with wave-function collapse in (1).
>
> The approach describing the electron as helically circulating spin-1/2
> charged photon generating the de Broglie wavelength is quite distinct
> from these above approaches as to how the de Broglie wavelength and
> matter waves are generated. In the charged photon approach, the
> charged photon’s speed, frequency, energy, wavelength and momentum
> relations are all associated with de Broglie's proposed relationship
> E=hf = gamma mc^2 for a moving electron and with E = hf, p =
> h/lambda and c = f lambda for a photon. Unlike de Broglie’s approach
> where pilot phase waves having the relativistic de Broglie wavelength
> h/(gamma mv) are generated directly from the oscillating electron’s
> mass kernel, the helically-circulating charged photon is proposed to
> first generate quantum plane waves with wavelength h/(gamma mc) as the
> charged photon helically circulates. These quantum plane waves
> intersect the helical axis (the path of the modeled moving electron)
> to generate the electron’s relativistic de Broglie matter waves, which
> in the non-relativistic Schrodinger equation picture correspond to the
> wave equation of a free electron. In the Bohm approach the particle
> associates with and is informed by the quantum potential to generate
> the electron’s diffraction properties involving the de Broglie
> wavelength, while in the Copenhagen interpretation, the particle
> description is complimentary to the quantum wave-function description,
> and the source of the de Broglie wavelength is unspecified except
> mathematically in the formal QM equations. In the SED approach, it is
> the interaction with background electromagnetic waves with the
> particle oscillator that generates the de Broglie wavelength.
>
> So the charged-photon approach to modeling the electron suggests a
> different interpretation for the generation of the de Broglie
> wavelength, which is fundamental to describing the wave-particle
> nature of particles with rest mass, and forms a basis of quantum
> mechanics. Describing an electron as a circulating charged photon,
> suggests that the if the electron is a new variety of photon with many
> of a photon’s properties but some differences also, the problem of why
> the electron has wavelike properties may be nearing a solution, but
> the problem of understanding (rather than just postulating) why the
> photon has wave-particle properties still remains.
>
> with best regards,
> Richard
>
>
>
>> On Oct 28, 2015, at 7:48 AM, af.kracklauer at web.de
>> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Albrecht:
>> See below:
>> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 28. Oktober 2015 um 14:56 Uhr
>> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de
>> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>>
>> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>,
>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> *Cc:* "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com
>> <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>>, "Joakim Pettersson"
>> <joakimbits at gmail.com <mailto:joakimbits at gmail.com>>, "Ariane
>> Mandray" <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr <mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>>
>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers
>> Hi Al,
>>
>> thank you for the reference to your paper. I think that it is an
>> interesting contribution. However I need some more details in order
>> to fully and correctly understand it.
>>
>> 1.) Is it correct that your deduction of the de Broglie wavelength is
>> based on the understanding that there exists a background of
>> EM-waves? And that it needs this understanding?
>> Al: Yes, but I do not see that as an ontological fact as much as a
>> convenient summary of the totality of interactions with the remaining
>> charges in the universe. (Maybe you've picked up by now that at a
>> fundamental level I do not accept the concepts of "photon" or "E&M"
>> as valid final discriptions or models for the totality of all
>> possible gaussian (1/r^2) WITH DELAY between ALL extant charges.
>> Photons and E&M waves are approximations, albeit very useful ones.)
>> If one choses to live with this assumtion, i.e., the existence of
>> this background, which is, BTW, identical with that deduced from QM.
>> as it stands, then the energy density at each point in space
>> divergerges, just like "2nd QM "quantum vacuum"! To get around this
>> objection I have some ideas, still a bit raw and unwritten up.
>>
>> 2.) The sequence of your equations (1) to (4) is too compact for me
>> to make it understandable, missing e.g. a definition of k_0 . Any
>> chance to have it more detailed?
>> Al: Don't over interpret it, just redo it yourself with whatever
>> notation you like. The description is meant to be definitive. The
>> math is atmospherics for the paper. But, k_0 = omega_0/c where the
>> omega is for the resonant wave in the particles rest frame. It turns
>> out, as argued lower in the paper, this does not really matter which
>> omega, or how many (e.g., multipole interaction, etc.), even an
>> infinite number (point charge), they all get modualted by the
>> deBroglie wave. Again, this is the final, average effect, not an
>> ontologically precise deal. QM, after all, is about averages,
>> relabeled "expectations." Thinking otherwise leadds to endless
>> logic-traps.
>> Al: Hope this helps, best Al
>>
>> Thanks and best regards
>> Albrecht
>>
>> Am 27.10.2015 um 16:11 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>>
>> Hi All:
>> In paper No. 11 on www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com I published
>> some ideas on the origin and nanture of deBroglie waves. Seems
>> to me some of the objections and obscurities mentioned below are
>> delt with therein. Take a look, see what you think.
>> ciao, Al
>> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 27. Oktober 2015 um 15:39 Uhr
>> *Von:* "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
>> *An:* "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>> *Cc:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion"
>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "Joakim
>> Pettersson" <joakimbits at gmail.com>, "Ariane Mandray"
>> <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>
>> *Betreff:* Re: [General] research papers
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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/20151029/26e70886/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list