[General] research papers

Fri Oct 30 13:43:16 PDT 2015

Hello Richard,

thank you, and here follow some further informations.

> Am 30.10.2015 um 06:58 schrieb Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>:
> 
> Hello Albrecht,
>  
>> On Oct 29, 2015, at 4:01 AM, Dr. Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
>> 
>> 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?
> 
> Albrecht, I am not knowledgeable on pilot wave theory, but according to Al’s article No. 11 p4  "What remains unanswered, however, is the question of just how a pilot wave steers a particle. This question is made particularly vexing in that obvious mechanisms seem to lead to a close, but still wrong answer. Specifically, if it is imagined that particles are nudged by the radiation pressure of pilot waves, then particles should be found prefer- entially at the nodes of these waves where pressure is lowest. But this is not so."
>  
>   So the pilot wave theory makes the wrong predictions. Rather serious problem.
> 
The considerations of Al to the pilot wave are very close to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. The pilot wave as envisioned by de Broglie did not have the particles at the nodes of the wave but the particles are the originator of the waves. I do not see a reason why such a system should not be stable. The concept of de Broglie was not finalized by him. He did not yet have a model of the inside of a particle. But I have read at John Bell, who investigated the discussion at the Solvey conference in 1927, that Heisenberg attempted to disproof the concept of the pilot wave, but in the view of Bell he did not have valid arguments.
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> Your “very simple and logical” explanation is still only words. You need to show that your explanation will quantitatively fix the problem that Al describes if you want pilot wave theory to work the way you think it should.
>> 
To build a quantitative concept needs of course still a lot of work. I am confident that it is possible by the reasons given above and I do not know any real contra-arguments against that, but the work has still to be done.

If I could easily complete such concept, I would be on the level of Heisenberg, which I am not.

>> 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.
> 
> You say that the de Broglie wavelength is not Lorentz invariant. Well, neither is the wavelength of a photon. What is invariant in a photon is that its rest mass is zero. 
> 
Any reactions of the photon are of course Lorentz invariant, also with respect to the wavelength. You can look at any possible reaction of a photon and transform it into another inertial system. The result is again a process which follows the known laws of physics. 

This is to my knowledge true for all reactions of elementary particles which do not use the de Broglie wavelength. 

The problem with the de Broglie wavelength has to be solved, which would give us a better understanding of particle physics in general. I am confident that this will be possible soon, and I have mentioned earlier in which context the solution may be found. 
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> There is no agreement that I have heard in this group that you model explains the inertial mass of a particle. You claim that it does and keep insisting on this. But your model requires that the strong force interacts with electrons, which it doesn’t experimentally. A very serious problem for your model.

It would be a bit too long to explain the mass aspect of my model here in detail. The essential fact is that any extended object unavoidably does have inertial behaviour. If two single objects are bound to each other so as to keep a distance, this is done by a mixture of attracting and repelling forces. If now one single objects is moved, the other one will be held at its position by these forces for a short time, caused by the finiteness of the speed of light. This is inertia.

For a detailed description you may view my website www.ag-physics.org/rmass . You can also find it by the search string "origin of mass". It is not a physical argument but when using this search string, this site is the first selection in the internet since more than 12 years, so there is some attention. (Only sometimes an analog site of Frank Wilczek is ranked higher.)

It is true that the model assumes that the electron is also subject to the strong force. This topic was discussed here some time ago. At DESY it was found that the electron reacts to the strong force. The ad hoc explanation that there is a "leptoquark" to allow for this could not be verified. - The results of this approach are very precise; I think that this is an argument.

Best regards
Albrecht

> 
>      with best regards,
>            Richard
>> 
>> 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 wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Albrecht:
>>>>  
>>>> See below:
>>>>  
>>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. Oktober 2015 um 14:56 Uhr
>>>> Von: "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
>>>> An: af.kracklauer at web.de, general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>> Cc: "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>, "Joakim Pettersson" <joakimbits at gmail.com>, "Ariane Mandray" <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 k0.  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.
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>  	
>>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>>>> www.avast.com
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   			 			
>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. 				
>> www.avast.com
>> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151030/9e47ad3e/attachment.htm>