[General] De Broglie Wave

Mon Feb 8 10:03:23 PST 2016

The screen is the "observer" that causes the collapse of the wavefunctin. A moving human will see bands. Will the bands be in a different position if the human is moving?

    On Monday, February 8, 2016 11:20 AM, "af.kracklauer at web.de" <af.kracklauer at web.de> wrote:

 Hi Albrecht: Your challenge is easy!  In fact my last responce covered it.   The RELEVANT velocity is the relative velocity between the particle and the slit; not that between the observer-particle or observer-slit.   An observer will see all kinds of distortions of the events, starting with simple persepctive due to being at some distance from the slit and its registration screen.  In additon this observer will see those deB waves affecting the particle (NOT from the particle, nor from the slit, but from the universal background there before either the particle or slit came into being)  as perspectively-relativistically distorted (twin-clock type distortion).  BUT, the observer will still see the same over-all background because the totality of background signals (not just those to which this particle is tuned), i.e., its spectral energy density, is itself Lorentz invariant.  That is, the observer's  motion does not  enable it to empirically distinguish between the background in the various frames, nor does the background engender friction forces. You have got to get your head around the idea that deB waves are independant of particles whatever their frame. Schrördinger did toy with some aspects that deBroglie used, but never did succeed in rationalizing his eq. in those or any other terms.  For him, when died, wave functions were ontologically completely mysterious.  From SED proponents, I'm told, my thoughts in #7 on www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com, are unique in formulating S's eq. in terms of deB concepts.  Try it, maybe you'll like it.   There are other SED-type stories too, but as they are based on diffusion (parabolic, not hyperbolic) precesses, I find them self contradictory. ciao, Al Gesendet: Montag, 08. Februar 2016 um 141 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 WaveHi Al,

if you follow de Broglie, you should have an explanation for the following experiment (here again):

Electrons move at 0.1 c towards the double slit. Behind the double slit there is an interference pattern generated, which in the frame of the slit follows the rule of de Broglie. But now there is an observer also moving at 0.1 c parallel to the beam of electrons. In his frame the electrons have momentum=0 and so wavelength=infinite. That means: No interference pattern. But there is in fact a pattern which does not disappear just because there is another observer. And the moving observer will see the pattern. - This is a falsification of de Broglie's rule. What else?

The understanding that the de Broglie wave is a property of the particle (even though depending on their speed, but not on an interaction) was not my idea but the one of Schrödinger and Dirac and many others. Also by de Broglie himself.

Ciao Albrecht

 Am 08.02.2016 um 03:30 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
Hi Albrecht: BUT, the laws of Physics for "being" in a frame are not the laws for interacting between frames!  The deB. wave is not a feature of a particle in its own frame, but a feature of the interaction of such a particle with at least one other particle in another frame.  When the two frames are moving with respect to each other, then the features of the interaction cannot be Lorentz invariants.  When one particle is interacting with another particle (or ensemble---slit say) the relevant physics is determined by the deB wave in that sitation, whatever it looks like to an observer in a third frame with yet different relative velocities.  It is a perspective effect: a tree is the same ontological size in fact no matter how small it appears to distant observers.  Observed diminished size(s) cannot be "invriant."  Appearances =/= ,,so sein''. You have gotten your head stuck on the idea that deB. waves are characteristics intrinsic to particles in an of themselves.  Recalibrate!  DeB waves are charactteristics of the mutual interaction of particles. Best, Al Gesendet: Sonntag, 07. Februar 2016 um 22:10 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 WaveHi 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 WaveHi 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 WaveHi 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 WaveHi 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 |

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at jchodge at frontier.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jchodge%40frontier.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/20160208/876b84c5/attachment.htm>