[General] De Broglie Wave

Mon Feb 8 23:31:40 PST 2016

Richard
Is that four-momentum?
D

      From: Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; af.kracklauer at web.de 
 Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 7:47 PM
 Subject: Re: [General] De Broglie Wave

Hi Al, Wolfgang, Albrecht and all,   Does this constitute a possible “explanation” of the origin of the inertia of mass?  Mass (or a particle with mass like an electron) is made of light (or a circling photon or a circling electromagnetic wave). Light (or a photon or an electromagnetic wave) has linear momentum. Linear momentum has inertia.        Of course, we still do not know why the linear momentum of light has inertia. But can we say that the origin of the inertia of mass is in the circling linear momentum within the mass?       Richard

On Feb 8, 2016, at 5:15 PM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote:
Hi Wolfgang & all: I am not now deliberatly trying to say something about the origin of inertia or mass.  In general I do not try to explain such things, rather to zero in on what strike me as egriegious errors. Otherwise, from familiarity with formal logic, I think I know that, all "explication, explantion, modeling" in the end (actually beginning) is based on essentially unknowable (in the sense of logic) assertions.  What all humans seem to me to mean by these words is: to associate whatever is to be explained with some common, mesoscopic experience---even while that experience itself remains in the formal-logic sense absolutely "out of the blue."  From this view point, efforts to explain everything are bound, at best, to wind up being circular, at worst: self-inconsistent or just another urban legend or ersatz religion.  Science, then, becomes an effort to mathematiclly encode material processes so as to better manipulate then in the construction of better mouse-traps.  In the end, everything fundamental will remain beyond grasp, starting with life and death. An example of a faux explantion is the reduction of some microscopic force to a "contact force", which we humans feel we understand from everyday experience.  Trouble is, that experience is misunderstood!  At the microscopic level we now know that no electron in the molecules of our fingers ever "contacts" an electron in the molecules of a pencil we pick up.  ALL force, therefore, has an "action-at-a-distance" character when considered at the micro-nano scale. Our human contact-experience is a delusion.  Explanations reducing force to contact are essentially mistaken. For what it's worth, Al Gesendet: Montag, 08. Februar 2016 um 20:26 Uhr
Von: "Wolfgang Baer" <wolf at nascentinc.com>
An: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Betreff: Re: [General] De Broglie WaveTo All:
This is a very interesting discussion, although I feel you two (Albrecht, Al) and  are talking past each other.
 The repetition of Albrecht's call to read his derivation is appropriate. I have done so and see no problem with the conclusion that extended particles will have inertia if c is finite. The problem is not with the derivation but with the insistence that the speed of light and particle extension are all that is required. There are a lot of hidden assumptions (like what holds the extended particle together, and why does a force on one side of an extended particle not also move the other side) and if one adds them all up does one come up with a simpler overall explanation for inertial mass than just assuming inertial mass to begin with.

However the issue I would like to question is  ""interaction", which mnight as well be thought of an absract string between charges."
I've been trying to get an answer to the question "what are strings made of" on ResearchGate and the best answer besides that it is an abstract useful concept has been "Strings are made of smoke and mirrors", However I lean toward Strings are made of Action, i.e. the material of a world line. Is this what you ,Al, had in mind with the quoted passage?

Wolf
 Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.comOn 2/5/2016 6:15 PM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote:
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 Wolf at nascentinc.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.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/20160209/929c531f/attachment.htm>