[General] De Broglie Wave
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Sun Feb 7 13:10:49 PST 2016
Hi Al,
at one of your points I really disagree. The physical laws have to be
fulfilled in every frame. That means that all physical processes have to
obey the same laws in all frames. So also the process at the double
slit. But the rule given by de Broglie looks correct in only one frame,
that is the frame where the double slit is at rest. For an observer in
motion the diffraction pattern looks very similar as for the observer at
rest, but for the observer in motion the results according to de Broglie
are completely different, because the momentum of the particle is
different in a wide range in the frame of a moving observer and so is
the wavelength assigned to the particle.
The specific case: At electron scattering, the observer co-moving with
the electron will see a similar pattern as the observer at rest, but de
Broglie says that for this observer there does not exist any pattern.
That is strongly incorrect.
The Schrödinger equation and also the Dirac function should have correct
results in different frames, at least at non-relativistic speeds. This
requirement is clearly violated through their use of de Broglie's rule.
Grüße
Albrecht
PS: Your article refers to "Stochastic Electrodynamics". That is in my
knowledge not standard physics and so a new assumption.
Am 07.02.2016 um 19:03 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
> Hi Albrecht:
> In my view the story in my paper has no new assunptions, rather new
> words for old assumptions. As I, along with most others, see it,
> there is no conflict with experiment, but a less than fully
> transparent explantion for experimental observations (particle beam
> diffrction) otherwise unexplained. At the time of writing, and
> nowadays too (although I'd to think that my paper rationalizes DeB's
> story) it was the most widely accepted story for this phenomna.
> The only entities that logically need to be Lorentz invariant are the
> particle. I the deB wave is not a 'Bestandteil' of the particle, but
> of its relations with its envionment, then invariance is not defined
> nor useful.
> M.f.G. Al
> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 07. Februar 2016 um 14:39 Uhr
> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de
> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org, "Richard Gauthier"
> <richgauthier at gmail.com>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
> Hi Al,
>
> thank you for your reference. Your paper has a lot of intelligent
> thoughts but also a lot of additional assumptions. With reference to
> the de Broglie wave, I think, is the situation much simpler on the
> level of conservative knowledge. De Broglie has misunderstood
> relativity (particularly dilation) and so seen a conflict which does
> in fact not exist. He has solved the conflict by inventing an
> additional "fictitious" wave which has no other foundation in physics,
> and also his "theorem of harmonic phases" which as well is an
> invention without need. And his result is in conflict with the
> experiment if we ask for Lorentz invariance or even for Galilean
> invariance. - If we follow the basic idea of de Broglie by, however,
> avoiding his logical error about relativity, we come easily to a
> description of matter waves without logical conflicts. This does not
> need new philosophy or other effort at this level.
>
> Best, Albrecht
>
> Am 06.02.2016 um 03:15 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
> 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
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 05. Februar 2016 um 21:43 Uhr
> *Von:* "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>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
> Hi Al,
>
> true, in the frame of the particle the dB wavelength is infinite.
> Because in its own frame the momentum of the particle is 0. The
> particle oscillates with the frequency of the particle's
> Zitterbewegung (which background fields do you have in mind? De
> Brogie does not mention them). This oscillation is in no
> contradiction with this wavelength as the phase speed is also
> infinite. For the imagination, the latter means that all points of
> that wave oscillate with the same phase at any point.
>
> Which background waves do you have in mind? What is the CNONOICAL
> momentum? And what about E&M interactions? De Broglie has not
> related his wave to a specific field. An E&M field would anyway
> have no effect in the case of neutron scattering for which the
> same de Broglie formalism is used. And into which frame do you see
> the wave Lorentz-transformed?
>
> So, an electron in his frame has an infinite wavelength and in his
> frame has the double slit moving towards the particle. How can an
> interference at the slits occur? No interference can happen under
> these conditions. But, as I have explained in the paper, the
> normal wave which accompanies the electron by normal rules (i.e.
> phase speed = c) will have an interference with its own
> reflection, which has then a wavelength which fits to the
> expectation of de Broglie. But that is a very local event (in a
> range of approx. 10^-12 m for the electron) and it is not at all a
> property of the electron as de Broglie has thought.
>
> To say it again: The de Broglie wavelength cannot be a steady
> property of the particle. But Schrödinger and Dirac have
> incorporated it into their QM equations with this understanding.
>
> If I should have misunderstood you, please show the mathematical
> calculations which you mean.
>
> Ciao, Albrecht
>
> Am 05.02.2016 um 19:20 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
> Hi: Albrecht:
> Your arguments don't resonate with me. The deB' wave length
> is infinite in the particles frame: it is the standing wave
> formed by the inpinging background waves having a freq. = the
> particle's Zitterbewegung. If these TWO waves are each
> Lorentz x-formed to another frame and added there, they
> exhibit exactly the DeB' modulation wavelength proportional to
> the particle's momentum. The only mysterious feature then is
> that the proportionality is to the CNONICAL momentum, i.e.,
> including the vector potential of whatever exterior E&M
> interactions are in-coming. Nevertheless, everything works
> our without contradiction. A particle oscillates in place at
> its Zitter freq. while the Zitter signals are modulated by the
> DeB' wavelength as they move through slits, say.
> ciao, L
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 05. Februar 2016 um 12:28 Uhr
> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>,
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
> Hi Richard and Al, hi All,
>
> recently we had a discussion here about two topics:
>
> 1. The functionality of the de Broglie wave, particularly its
> wavelength
> if seen from a different inertial system. Such cases lead to
> illogical
> situations.
> 2. The problem of the apparent asymmetry at relativistic dilation.
>
> I have investigated these cases and found that they are in
> some way
> connected. Relativistic dilation is not as simple as it is
> normally
> taken. It looks asymmetric if it is incorrectly treated. An
> asymmetry
> would falsify Special Relativity. But it is in fact symmetrical if
> properly handled and understood.
>
> It is funny that both problems are connected to each other
> through the
> fact that de Broglie himself has misinterpreted dilation. From
> this
> incorrect understanding he did not find another way out than
> to invent
> his "theorem of phase harmony"; with all logical conflicts
> resulting
> from this approach.
>
> If relativity is properly understood, the problem seen by de
> Broglie
> does not exist. Equations regarding matter waves can be
> derived which
> work properly, i.e. conform to the experiments but avoid the
> logical
> conflicts.
>
> As announced, I have composed a paper about this. It can be
> found at:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/21564534/The_Conflict_with_the_De_Broglie_Wavelength
> .
>
> I thank Richard Gauthier for the discussion which we had about
> this
> topic. It caused me to investigate the problem and to find a
> solution.
>
> Albrecht
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature
> of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
> af.kracklauer at web.de
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der
> von Avast geschützt wird.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von
> Avast geschützt wird.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email>
>
---
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/20160207/20513407/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list