[General] De Broglie Wave

Sat Feb 6 01:00:52 PST 2016

Hi All,

I have been "on the road" for some time and haven't had an opportunity to respond. However I must endorse John Williamson's comments. Experiment is reality. If you want to introduce a new concept, at least base it on experimental observation. You can't ignore experimental facts because they don't fit your theory. Fit your theory to experimental observation. 

The other reason I haven't joined in is because I see so many participants "going off at a tangent", trying to justify their theory to others. If your theory is good, all you have to do is show how it fits observation and preferably make an experimentally testable prediction. If you want to see what others have done with their theories you need look no further than cosmologists explanation of the universe. It goes something like this:-
"In the beginning there was nothing (or something we don't know) and it exploded in a Big Bang. When it settled down over 13.8 billion years later, it had a 1 : 10^^60 chance of being this stable and requires 24 times the mass of the observable universe to explain its observed properties." Reworded, it means theoretical cosmologists explanation for the universe differs from the observed universe by 24 times the mass of the observed universe, not to mention the other 10^^60 non observable universes. Seriously folks, an error of 24 times the mass of the observable universe is bad enough, let alone 10^^60 other non observable universes. Errors of this magnitude are due to mathematicians extending their calculations to areas where the physics behind them is not established. The worst part is they are proud of their theory that has errors that large. 

They aren't the only physicists with errors that large. Astronomers detect a universe with an energy density of ≈ 10^^-10 Joule per cubic metre (J/m^^3). Quantum mechanics requires an energy density ≈ 10^^120 times that to get some of their calculations correct. An impartial evaluation of quantum mechanics shows it is based upon wave equations. For the uninitiated, a wave extends some distance, expressed mathematically as from minus infinity to plus infinity. An unbiased observer would suggest that if you can't get an expression that matches observation when you have a position that extends between plus and minus infinity and you have 10^^120 more variables to play with than are observed to exist, there is no hope for you. Then physicists wonder why their funding for their studies is being reduced? 

Back to my original comment on observation. If you wan't to introduce a new concept, you should base it upon some observed physical principle. Then show how known physical properties enable the mathematics associated with that concept to match known physical properties of, in this case, the electron. When you have gone through a few properties, you should make a prediction or two that can be tested experimentally. Only then should it be considered that you have some merit in your theory.

John Williamson, myself and others (Martin vdM included) have made similar comments to this effect in the past. Yet all I see is some participants ignoring known physical facts, claiming working theories like special relativity are wrong (probably because they don't understand them) without replacing them with a workable theory, and similar. 

Working in industry and running my own high tech companies for over 30 years has taught me, among other features, that an honest critic is your best friend. He (or she) will tell you where you are going wrong. If you listen to the advice and follow it, you will progress. Your "friend" who agrees with you and says "yes" frequently is your worst enemy. He (or she) will encourage you on the same path towards going "round in circles" or "nowhere". 

IMHO those errors I mentioned earlier, 24 times the mass of the observed universe with 10^^60 other universes in a multiverse; and 10^^120 times the observed energy density of the universe come about because their practitioners don't want to listen to others who say they must be wrong. Trying to convince others in this group discussion that your theory is correct will never replace showing it is correct by matching a dozen properties of the electron and making a few predictions that can be tested experimentally. 

IMHO, John Williamson and Martin van der Mark have a reasonable understanding of properties of the photon in particular and physics in general. If I remember correctly, MvdM indicated some time ago he would drop out of this discussion group because it was going nowhere. He hasn't made many contributions over the past few months. I am not speaking for him, but I suspect it was due to his belief the discussion was going nowhere. I will confess that my non participation lately has also been due to what I perceive is the discussion group going "round in circles and "nowhere". 

I think John W's  apology for being blunt was not needed. IMHO, for this discussion group to make progress, someone has to be a "best friend" and point out the "errors of you ways". I concur with some of his phrases. The only people who take offence at words like that are those who are happy "going round in circles " and getting "nowhere". 

I wonder how many times it is necessary to ask participants to relate their work to known physical properties! John W is this group's "best friend". Going off at a tangent because you don't agree with him is going to result in these group discussions finishing up with the same massive errors and cosmology and quantum mechanics.

In summary, stick to physical facts, not mathematical space.

Cheers,

Vivian Robinson

On 06/02/2016, at 4:31 PM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:

> Dear Al et al,
> 
> The Maxwell equations describe electro-magnetic waves. Both electric and magnetic fields can be measured. Are you really serious that you think they are a "fiction"? 
> 
> Cheers, John.
> 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, February 06, 2016 2:15 AM
> To: phys at a-giese.de
> Cc: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> Subject: Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
> 
> Hi Albrecht:
>  
> DeBroglie's verbage is indeed quite rococo!  Nonetheless, his machinations, although verbalized, in the true tradtion of quantum mechanics, mysteriously, can be reinterpreted (i.e., alternate verbage found without changing any of the math) so as to tell a fully, if (somewhat) hetrodoxical, story.  See #11 on www.Nonloco-Physics.0catch.com.
>  
> cc:  Waves are never a characteristic of a single, point-like entity, but colletive motion of a medium.  IF they exist at all.  My view is that E&M waves are a fiction wrought by Fourier analysis.  The only real physical part is an "interaction", which mnight as well be thought of an absract string between charges.  Also, neutrons have electric multipole moments; i.e., they are totally neutral but not charge-free. 
>  
> Best,  Al 
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160206/3bcbde79/attachment.htm>