[General] De Broglie Wave

Sun Feb 7 23:25:52 PST 2016

Dear Al,

I am glad that someone else even thinks about the fact that the E- &
B-fields of the photon must have a source (potential). That is a 1st step
in understanding the nature of light (and the universe). I don't believe in
quantized charges in the photon. However, there must be time-dependent
potentials.

Andrew

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 3:51 PM, <af.kracklauer at web.de> wrote:

> Hi All & Vivian:
>
> This is all very good and wise advice; but, there is a little
> complication!  Namely, at the micro, nano, etc., and cosmic level we humans
> can observe essentially nothing! We can only infer "facts" at those
> scales.  The "observation" involves a long string of physical and SOCIAL
> processes, each of which muddies the waters.  Maybe we are best advised to
> adhear as best possible to formal-logic so as to avoid simple
> contradictions or inconsistencies.  Avoiding patent misuse of terminology
> or the uncritical use of terms given their histroical pedagree should be a
> good first shot.  One glaring example is the use of the term "field."  It
> was not at the start intended to be a label of some kind of onta or stuff.
> It was a abstraction to portray the force per unit charge as it would be
> experienced by a "test charge" at a given position and given a source
> charge. Thus, where there is no test (or source) charge, there is no force
> and therefore no field---in sharp contrast to the current popular use of
> the term as if fields also exist even when there is no source charge.
> Theories build on this kind of talking/thinking cannot help but be cultural
> mythology: snazzy, fun but nonsense!
>
> For what it is worth, Al
>
> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 06. Februar 2016 um 10:00 Uhr
> *Von:* "Vivian Robinson" <viv at universephysics.com>
> *An:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] De Broglie Wave
> 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:-
> "I*n 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to
> receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
> Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160208/fad0b21e/attachment.htm>